DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 30-5-1984, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent.
2. Heard Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, Advocate for the appellants and the respondent, Qurban Ali Channa, in person.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was workman of the appellants and was serving as a Senior Cashier from 1-3-1976. He was placed under suspension on 17-7-1977, without any show-cause notice and was finally dismissed from service on 23-5-1981. He filed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, before the Labour Court which was allowed and the dismissal order was set aside on 21-11-1982, and he was ordered to be reinstated and was allowed 50% of the back benefits from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement. After reinstatement the respondent served notice upon the appellants on 24-9-1983 requesting them for payment of arrears of salary for the period of suspension which was rejected by the appellants, vide letter dated 11-10-1983. The respondent thereafter filed grievance petition in the Labour Court on 15-10- 1983, which was allowed vide impugned order.
4. The facts of the case, as stated above, are not disputed. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the grievance petition was time-barred and that under the Service Rules of the appellants, the employee could be suspended for any period without any restriction. It may be pointed that the Standing Orders Ordinance is a Statute which would override any Rules framed by the appellants for its employees. Even otherwise the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is a special law enacted for the purpose of regulating the industrial employments and as such would have overriding effect. Admittedly under Standing Order 15(5) the employer could suspend a workman for the purpose of conducting enquiry for a period, not exceeding 4 weeks and if a workman is found not guilty, he would be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the same wages as he would have received if he had not been suspended. In view of this provision, the suspension of the respondent for a period beyond 4 weeks was illegal and he was entitled to full salary for the period he was kept illegally under suspension. The fact, that the impugned order of his dismissal was set aside by the learned Labour Court implies that, he was not found guilty and was entitled to get full salary under this provision.
5. The learned Labour Court had rightly pointed that the respondent could have claimed the arrears of salary for the period of suspension only after his reinstatement. The appellants were expected to abide by the provisions of law and pay the arrears of salary for the period of suspension after reinstatement of the employee. The refusal to pay the arrears of salary was communicated to the respondent vide their letter, dated 11-10-1983. As pointed above the right to claim arrears of salary arose to the respondent after his reinstatement under orders of the learned Labour Court. The arrears of salary being money respondent could enforce his claim for the recovery of this amount within 3 years from the date the right accrued to him. He made demand for the payment of the arrears on 29-9-1983, which was within the statutory period of 3 years.
Under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, the period of 3 months has been computed from the date cause of grievance arises. The respondent chose to enforce his right on 29-9-1983, within the period of 3 years when the right to recover the arrears of salary accrued. The cause of grievance under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, therefore, arose to the respondent only when his request for payment of arrears of the salary was rejected by the appellants vide its letter, dated 11-10-1983. As such, in my opinion, the learned Labour Court had rightly held that the grievance petition which was filed on 15-10-1983, was not barred by limitation as prescribed under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
6. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
7. The amount of arrears of salary, if deposited by the appellants in this Tribunal, be paid to the respondent after due verification.