' This appeal is directed against the decision given by the IIIrd Sind Labour Court at Karachi on 14th December, 1983 dismissing the grievance petition. Submitted to it by the appellant workman complaining against the order of withholding of increment permanently for a period of one year passed by the respondents. The sole ground on which the said grievance petition has been dismissed is that it was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969.
2. I have perused the relevant evidence on the record and have also heard the appellant in person and Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondents. The admitted facts are that the order of withholding of increment of the appellant was passed on 10th July, 1982. He filed a departmental appeal under the Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to the Divisional Transportation Officer on 4th September, 1982 within a period of 2 months under the rules. His departmental appeal was dismissed on 20th November, 1982 vide Order Annexure "F" on the record. He served a grievance notice in the form of representation on 13th February, 1983 within a period of 3 months of the rejection of his departmental appeal. He filed the grievance petition on 19th April, 1983 within a period of 2 (1/2) months of the grievance notice which was not replied. It has, therefore, been contended by the appellant that his grievance petition is within period of limitation as provided in section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969. Confronted with the situation, Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed on behalf of the respondent has contended that the grievance petition would be barred by limitation for the reasons, firstly that the cause of grievance accrued to the appellant on the passing of the initial order of punishment, dated 10th July, 1982 and not on the date of rejection of his appeal on 20th November, 1982 -and secondly, that the grievance notice in the form of representation given on 13th February, 1983 would not be a legal grievance notice within the meaning of the requirements of section 2 I. R.
0., 1969. I find no force in both the contentions. So far the first contention is concerned, reliance has been placed amongst others, the latest decision of this Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Salim v.
Chairman, Karachi Port Trust , wherein it was held that the grievance notice served within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of rejection of appeal was not time-barred as the grievance of the appellant arose on the rejection of his appeal. There is no dispute that the departmental appeal has been filed in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the respondents, Pakistan Railways and was filed within the prescribed period of 2 months from the date of the order of punishment as provided by the rules. It A would, therefore, appear that the grievance to the appellant arose on the rejection of his appeal and not on passing of the initial order withholding of the increment. As regards the second contention, there is no prescribed form of grievance notice provided in section 25-A, I. R.0., 1969.
All that is required is that the notice should be in writing and by means thereof the grievance of the workman should be brought to the notice of the employer. Reliance in that respect has been placed on the decision B of this Tribunal in the case of Sufi Abdul Rehman v. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. . The representation, dated 13th February, 1983 in the instant case fulfils the required conditions. It should thus be considered as the requisite notice. Accordingly the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents would not help their case. In that view of the matter, the grievance petition filed by the appellant on 19th April, 1983 was clearly within a period of limitation as prescribed by section 25-A, I. R.0., 1969.
3. The result is that the impugned decision, dated 14th December, 1983 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. 1981 PLC 184 1981 PLC 621