This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Vth Labour Court , given on 9th July, 1981, rejecting the grievance petition preferred by the appellant against his dismissal from service.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant was appoin--ted as clerk in the Shares Department of the Investment Corporation Pakistan, the respondent herein, with effect from 2nd July, 1968. It appears that a theft of 800 N. S. C. Shares took place from the offices of the respondents. In respect of this theft a report was lodged with the police who arrested the appellant and another employee of the respondent and challaned them in a Criminal Court. However. The appellant was acquitted by the Criminal Court under section 249, Cc. P. C., for want of evidence, by its order, dated 15th June, 1979. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the Criminal Court, a domestic enquiry was ordered against the appellant and on .The basis of the report of the enquiry officer, Z. A. Meckri, who held the appellant guilty, the appellant was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 8th October, 1978, after a second show-cause notice had been issued to him, the reply where to was not found satisfactory by the management. The appellant filed a review petition against the orders of his. Dismissal to the Managing Director on 20th November, 1978. It may be mentioned that this review petition was in accordance with the Rules applicable to the employees of the respondent corporation. The review petition was ultimately rejected by the respondents by their letter, dated 3rd April, 1979 after tile appellant had submitted 2 reminders in this behalf, dated 12th February, 1979 and 13th March, 1979. The appellant was not satisfied with the communication made to him by the management of the rejection of his review petition and hence, by his letter, dated 28th April, 1979, asked to be conveyed full justification for the termination of his services. The said letter reads as follows :- Registered A. D.
"Mr. D. M. Qureshi, Managing Director, Investment Corporation of Pakistan, 5th Floor, N. B. P. Building, I. I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi.
Reference :I. C. P. Letter No. HQA/PF/2024, dated 3rd April, 1979 Dear Sir, With great regret, I am to report about the inefficiency of the Officer who obviously violated the Chief Martial Law Administrator's instruc--tions (issued vide Cabinet Division's letter No. 8/80/78- Imp., dated 4th April, 1978) for keeping the standard of correspondence, reproduced below :- "The C M L A has therefore been pleased to direct that such evasive . Communication should be avoided in future, and the decision on important matter be conveyed with full justification so that the Recipient has some idea why his request/petition has been rejec--ted."
Thanking you in anticipation for any expeditious and judicious action.
Yours obediently, Sd/- Jaleelur Rebman, Petitioner."
3. The above letter was followed by a further letter from the appellant, dated 22nd May, 1979, making a similar demand. The appel--lant, not receiving any reply to his 2 aforesaid letters, wrote yet another letter, dated 10th June, 1979, making the same demand for communi--cation to him of the full justification for the termination of his services. In the meanwhile, according to the appellant, he had filed a grievance petition before the learned Vth Labour Court on 31st May, 1979. The record of the learned Labour Court shows that this grievance petition was received by the Clerk of the Court and an objection in respect of the petition was raised that it was not accompanied with a copy of an annexure relied upon by him. Compliance with this objection, as per note of the office of the learned Labour Court was made on 22nd July, 1979 and on 24th April, 1979, the matter was put up before the learned Presiding Officer who directed that the matter be fixed for hearing on 5th August, 1979 on the point of limitation. The grievance petition was ultimately admitted to regular hearing on 19th August, 1979
4. The respondents resisted the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground that it was barred by time. On merits it was asserted that the appellant was rightly dismissed from service after a proper domestic enquiry in which it was established that he was involved in the theft of 800 shares from the office of the respondents.
5. I have heard Mr. Anwar Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Samiullah Khan who appeared for the respondents. The main issue in this case is whether a grievance notice was served by the appellant on respondents, and if so, whether it was served within the period of 3 months from the cause of grievance having arisen, as provided in subsection (1) of section 25-A, I.
R. O. As already pointed out, the order of dismissal in respect of the appellant was issued on 8th October, 1978, and was apparently served on him on the same day. The grievance notice should, therefore, have been filed within 3 months of the date of the said order and the grievance petition should have been filed within a further maximum period of 2J months. It is asserted by the appellant himself in his grievance petition that his review petition, dated 20th November, 1978 is the requisite notice. If this review petition, is treated as the grievance notice then the grievance petition, assuming that it was filed by the appellant on 31st May, 1979 as claimed by him would be hopelessly time-barred. Mr. Anwar Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, was at pains to argue that the first review petition was made in accordance with rule 9 of the Rules applicable to the employees of the respondent corporation and hence it ought not to be treated as the requisite grievance notice. It may be pointed out that according to the said rule, employees of the corporation have the right td prefer an appeal or an application for review against any penalty imposed on them. The appeals or application for review are to be made to the authorities next higher than that which pass the orders of punish--ment. The dismissal orders in respect of the appellant were passed by the Chief. Administrator, while the review petition was made to the Managing Director of the Corporation, the next higher authority. The review petition thus appears to have been in accordance with the pro--visions of the Rules. However, if the review petition is not deemed to be the requisite notice of the grievance by the workmen, despite being so claimed in the grievance petition itself, the question arises as to whether any other grievance notice was served by the appellant upon the respondent corporation. Mr. Anwar Sheikh sought to argue that the letter, dated 28th April, 1979, which was served upon the respondent corporation within 11 months of the rejection of the appellant's review petition should be deemed to be the requisite grievance notice. I have in the earlier part of this judgment reproduced the said letter in extenso.
The letter simply asks for being conveyed full justification for the rejec--tion of the review petition but cannot be considered to be bringing the grievance of the appellant against the termination of his services, either by the order, dated 8th October, 1978 or the rejection of his review petition, dated 3rd April, 1979, to the notice of his employer. Moreover, the employer in the case of the appellant was the Chief Administrator, who had issued the original order of his dismissal, dated 8th October, 1978. Neither the letter, dated 28th April, 1979, nor the letter, dated 22nd May, 1979, were addressed to the Chief Administrator, but to the Managing Director, who was the appellate or reviewing authority. As such, A neither of these 2 letters can be considered to be the grievance notice as contemplated by subsection (1) of section 25-A,
1. R. O.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.