' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 22nd May, 1982 passed by the learned Labour Court No, VI, at Hyderabad, dismissing the application under section 25-A, I. R. O.. 1969, filed by the appellant holding that it was not maintainable being premature.
2. The facts leading up to the appeal briefly stated are that the applilant was employed as a Cleaner in S. R. T. C. At Mirpurkhas when on 19th May, 1980 he made an application for leave for 4 days on account of illness. After recovery from illness he reported for duty on 28th May, 1980 but he was not allowed to resume. He then made a complaint to the Member Technical and also the Chairman, S. R. T. C. At Hyderabad, but with no result. Ultimately, on 13th August, 1980 his services were terminated with effect from 28th July, 1980 on account of unauthorised absence from duty for more than 10 days. He served the respondent with a grievance notice but received no reply. He then filed a grievance application under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969 on 10th November, 1980 before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application being non-maintainable as premature. Aggrieved by this order the appellant has come up in this .Appeal.
3. I have persued the material evidence available on the record and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro for the appellant and Mr. Raees M.
Mushtaq for the respondent. The appellant examined himself and Mr. Saleem Khan, a postman, whereas on behalf of the respondent, S. Ahmad Rizvi, District Manager S. R. T. C, Mirpurkhas was examined. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised two- fold contention, firstly, that though the grievance application was premature by one day, it matured during the course of the proceedings under section 25-A, I. R. 0, 1969, and, therefore, was maintainable ; secondly, that since admittedly the appellant was not served with the charge-sheet and no domestic enquiry was held within the meaning of the Standing Order 15 and the charge was not proved against him, the termination of his service was illegal.
4 As regards the first contention, there is evidence of the appellant to the effect that he sent a 'grievance notice to the respondent on 26th October, 1.980 whereas the postman, namely, Muhammad Saleem Khan has deposed that he delivered the registered envelope containing the grievance notice in the office of the District Manager, S. R. T. C. Mirpurkhas on 27th October, 1980.
Though the delivery of the grievance notice has not been admitted, the postal receipt coupled with the evidence of the appellant and that of the postman would clearly show that the grievance notice was sent on 26th October, 1980 whereas it was delivered to the respondent on 27th October, 1580. However, it is more or less on admitted position that the grievance notice was delivered to the respondent on 27th October, 1980 and the grievance was brought to the notice of the employer on that day and, therefore, the appellant filed the grievance petition one day before the expiry of 15 days after the service of the notice and the grievance application was premature by one day having been filed on 10th November, 1980. In view of this position, Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro has contended that the grievance matured during the course of the proceedings of grievance petition application filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, and therefore, the application was maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied on the case of Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmed Din wherein the learned Judges of the Supreme Court repelled the contention that the suit filed by the respondent be dismissed on the ground that it was premature when it was filed. The learned Judges took the view that though the suit was premature when it was filed the cause of action matured during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate Court, and, therefore, they were not prepared to dismiss the suit at the stage on that account. This decision was relied upon by the Bench of the Peshawar High Court in the case of Wahabuddin & Sons v. Controller of Rent for taking the view that though an ejectment application filed by the respondent was premature when it was entertained by the Controller the cause of action matured during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Court. This Tribunal relying on the above-mentioned authorities in the case of Managing Director, M. C. P. And others v. Aftab Hussain and others took the same view and observed that even if the cause of action was premature at the time of filing of the grievance application, it was too late to dismiss the respondents application on that ground. The authorities above-cited are applicable on all-fours to the circumstances in the instant case and I am clearly of the view that the application being prematured by one day only cannot be dismissed on that account, as it definitely matured during the course of the proceedings of the grievance application filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, by the appellant.
5. So for the second contention is concerned, I find that on the admitted facts of the case the appellant was neither charge-sheeted nor a domestic enquiry was held against him though a charge of misconduct for having remained absent from duty for more than 10 days was brought against him. What I find that no evidence to that effect has at all been adduced on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the termination of the service of the appellant is obviously illegal. For all these reasons, in my view, the appellant succeeds on the basis of both the contentions raised on his behalf.
6. The result is that the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is reinstated in service with full back benefits.
PLD 1964 SC 106 PLD 1971 Pesh. 236 1980 PLC 8711 2 3 1 2 3