' This is an appeal against the order of Sind Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad, dated 7-5-1983, whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, dismissed the grievance application on the ground that it was time-barred.
2. The facts are that the appellant was a Godown-Keeper since 19-2-1975. In the month of August, 1980, he fell ill and on 22-1-1981, he reported for duty. The respondent avoided to respond the resumption report and the appellant was not allowed to work. He, therefore, gave grievance notice to the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., and it was followed by a grievance petition in the Labour Court. That grievance application was later on withdrawn. The appellant then filed a claim before the Authority under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance at Hyderabad. That claim is still pending, the appellant learnt for the first time that on 1-7-1982 his services were terminated by the respondents. On 26-9-1982, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was not decided and no decision was communicated to the appellant. On 5-2-1983, he sent a grievance notice which was also not replied. Then, on 27-3-1983, he filed a grievance application before the learned Labour Court.
3. The learned Labour Court proceeded to decide this grievance application on the objections raised by the office. However, he heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the appellant.
4. I have heard Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, today. None is present ' on behalf of the respondents which is Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., although the notice on them has been served. I am told that in the Labour Court they did not appear and the order of dismissal of the grievance application was passed ex parte merely on the point of limitation. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that an appeal was filed by the appellant. The appeal was not decided nor its decision was ever communicated to the appellant. The time runs from the date of decision of appeal and would be computed thereafter. The respondents were not heard in the Labour Court and the objection was raised only by the office of the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court presumed that the grievance notice should have been given within one month although the decision of appeal was kept in abeyance or not decided. This objection of the Labour Court is criticised by the learned counsel and said that there is no such Law. The observation "that the Law has not left it at the sweet will of the aggrieved worker to send grievance notice to the employer at the time of his choosing if the decision on departmental appeal is not taken quickly." This observation is uncalled for.
5. Ordinarily the departmental appeal is to be decided and after the decision of the appeal the grievance notice is to be given to the employer. After the grievance notice is replied then the time provided in the Law, the grievance application could be made. At any rate I find that this order that the grievance application is hit by the limitation is not proper. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Labour Court concerned to proceed with the matter after having given the Notice to the respondents. The matter be decided on merits.