' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 11th May, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as Watchman in 1964. He was given a charge-sheet on 5th May, 1975 to which he submitted reply which was not considered satisfactory, therefore, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him, which culminated in his dismissal. After the service of grievance notice, the respondent brought the grievance petition.
3. The allegations against the respondent were of slackness in discharge of duties. The enquiry was defective, inasmuch as the evidence of no witness was recorded and only the respondent was brought under cross-examination by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer appearing before the lower Court stated that many documents were produced in the enquiry but he could not say why they were not brought on the file of the lower Court. This is another defect. Since all the record on which the Enquiry Officer relied was not brought in the lower Court, the respondent was disallowed opportunity to defend himself and to show his innocence even in the lower Court. A theft had taken place and the charge against the respondent was that he was guilty of slackness of duty. It was to be proved that in reality the respondent failed to discharge his duty and that the theft was the result of his slackness. But there is absolutely no meterial on the record of the enquiry to that effect.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were time-barred, inasmuch as the departmental appeal was rejected on 7th May, 1976, whereas the grievance notice was given on 1st October, 1976. The same point was raised before lower Court, but it was repelled back on the ground that after the dismissal of the appeal, the respondent had made a representation which was rejected on 9th September, 1976 and that from the said date the grievance notice and the grievance petition were within time. Ordinarily the cause of grievance starts from the date on which a departmental appeal is rejected in cases where such an appeal has been preferred but if there is any provision of further relief by way of representation etc., and such a representation is made, then cause of grievance starts from the rejection of such a representation. In the present case, the representation was made by the respondent and it was rejected on 9th September, 1976. It was not shown that there was no provision of representation. Since no such rule had been shown that there was no A provision of representation and the fact that the representation had been entertained it would be presumed that there may be such a provision. The petition, therefore, was not barred by time.
5. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to section 6 of the Ordinance XLI of 1976 the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the Pakistan Railways Police, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Under section 5 (b) of Ordinance XLI of 1976, all persons holding any post in the Railways Watch and Ward stood transferred to and brought under the Pakistan Railways Police. The Ordinance was enforced on 25th October, 1976, whereas the grievance notice was served by the respondent on .1st October, 1976 but the petition was brought on 6th November, 1976 after Ordinance XLI of 1976 had been enforced. At the time he brought the grievance petition he stood transferred to the Pakistan Railways Police and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had become inapplicable to his case, the result being that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The fundamental right of the respondent was not adversely affected by Ordinance XLI of 1976, because he had a right to challenge the order of termination, but the procedural change was brought about with the result that he could seek remedy from some other forum instead of the Labour Court. If he had brought the petition before the enforcement of the Ordinance, he could say that his petition was to be under the law, under which it was brought, but since the very petition was brought after the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had been made inapplicable to him and he stood transferred to the Railways Police, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct that the grievance petition be returned to the respondent to present the same before the proper forum.