DECISION ' These two appeals by the Railway Administration are directed against the two separate but similar decisions, both given on 31st July 1980, by the learned First Labour Court, allowing the grievance petitions of the two respondents and directing the appellants to recognise the date of confirmation of the respondents issued by the parent Railway (E.I.R.) and allow them all the benefits due to them as ex-servicemen and to re-determine their seniority.
2. I have heard Mr. A. T. Mahmood, Advocate, who appeared for the appellant, as also the respondents personally. Applications for adjournment on their behalf were filed by Mr. M. Sharif, Advocate but as he had filed no `vakalatnama' on their behalf before this Tribunal nor he has given adequate reasons for adjournment of the appeals, the adjournment applications were rejected.
3. I have examined the record and I find the grievance petition of the respondents are not maintainable on more than one ground. Now in the first place, the respondents had not themselves sent any grievance notice to their employer but had served grievance through their Advocate. In the case of Syed Mehmood Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company. Civil Appeal No, K- 48 of 1978, decided on 8th March 1980, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that having regard to the languag of subsection (1) of section 25-A,
1. R.
0., the requisite notice upon the employer has to be sent or served upon the employer by the workman himself or through his shop steward or C.B.A. And notice by or through an Advocate is not a valid notice. Since the prerequisite condition for A filing of and maintaining the grievance petition is the service upon the employer of requisite notice and as this condition has not been fulfilled in the instant two cases, the grievance petitions of the respondents were clearly not maintainable.
4. The grievance petitions of the two respondents are further barred by limitation. The grievance of the two respondents is that although their entry into service was pre-dated, in accordance with the War Service Rules, as they were ex-servicemen, they have not been given the benefits of War Service for the purposes of seniority and confirmation. Both the respondents have admitted in their evidence before the learned Labour Court that they had been agitating in respect of their seniority and confirmation since 1952. As a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., can only be filed in respect of a grievance of which notice has been given to the employer within three months of the arising of the grievance and further the grievance petition must be filed within 2 months of the service of the notice on the employer, the grievance petitions of the two appellants are hopelessly time-barred. Even if it be considered that the respondents are aggrieved by the provisional seniority list issued by the Railway Administration on 23rd June 1975, then also the grievance petitions of the respondents are hopelessly time-barred since the original grievance petitions were filed on 1st June 1977 while the amended grievance petitions were filed on 1st October 1977. In order to get over the hurdle of limitation the respondents took the plea that they had made representations against the said provisional seniority list and as they were given no reply to their representations their grievance petitions should be considered as within time. This ground apparently has found favour with the learned Labour Court. The mere fact that the respondents filed representations against the provisional seniority list, 1975, did not entitle them to wait indefinitely for service of grievance notice or filing of grievance petitions. Neither copies of the said representations have been produced in Court nor it is known on what date the representations were made. But even if it be considered that the respondents were entitled to wait for about six months for decision upon their representations, then also the grievance petitions would be time- barred, as they were made two years after the issuance of the seniority list.
5. On both the above grounds, therefore, the grievance petitions of the respondents are not maintainable. I would, accordingly, set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeals.