This grievance petition filed -under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 on 6-4-1988 is directed against the dismissal order dated 24-12-1987 passed by the respondent against the petitioner and it is prayed that the same be set aside with the directions that petitioner be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. Briefly, the case of petitioner according to the petition is that he was permanent workman working since last five years as Instrument Mechanic with the respondent with clean record and was granted two days' casual leave during which he received telephonic message from his sister about sickness of his mother at Rawalpindi on account of which he immediately rushed there without being able to seek prior permission; however, he sent application on 13-8-1989 through registered post seeking leave on the ground of mother's sickness but did not receive any reply until he received on 26-8-1987 show-cause notice dated 24-8-1987 with allegation of his unauthorised absence which was replied by him on 31-8-1987. Thereafter enquiry against him was conducted by Ch. Muhammad Bashir during which statement of one A.D. Soomro, the Assistant Manager of the equal rank of the Enquiry Officer was recorded. It is alleged that the said enquiry was not properly conducted and it was incorrectly held that he was guilty of the charge and without issuing him copy of the proceedings or final show-cause notice or letter of personal hearing, the impugned order was passed against which he filed appeal which was rejected vide order dated 14-2-1988 whereafter he sent grievance notice on 13-3-1988 and finally filed the instant petition.
3. Whereas the respondent through their reply statement have prayed for dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground that it is time-barred because the time for filing the grievance petition is to be computed from his abovementioned appeal (undated), considering it as the grievance notice because there is no provision in service law for filing of appeal. It is further contended that previously also the petitioner was issued several show-cause notices, warning letters, withholding of increments and that the petitioner had left for Rawalpindi without prior permission and had also not sent/produced the medical certificate of authorised/recognised Medical Officer of Rawalpindi. It is contended that the enquiry against the petitioner was fair, impartial and regular and, therefore, the impugned order based on the report of Enquiry Officer is not liable to be set aside.
4. In support of his petition, the petitioner has filed affidavit in evidence. Whereas in defence Ch. Muhammad Bashir, the Enquiry Officer and Allah Ditta Soomro filed their affidavits in evidence. All the above mentioned witnesses were duly cross-examined.
5. Perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties and also the record. My findings is as under.
6. In this matter, the respondents have challenged the grievance petition mainly on the point of limitation and in this regard, it is seen that the impugned order was passed on 24-12-1987 and according to the grievance petition, an appeal was filed against it; however, the date of departmental appeal is not mentioned. The said appeal is Annexure 'D' to the grievance petition which also does not show the date on which it was filed/sent. However, the reply statement shows that the same was received by the respondent on 7-1-1988 and was admittedly rejected vide order dated 14-2-1988 which is Annexure 'E' to the grievance petition. In this regard, in his affidavit-in- evidence, the petitioner while adopting the contents of the grievance petition has tried to show that he could file the departmental appeal but in the cross-examination by the learned Advocate for respondent, the petitioner has stated that, "after receiving dismissal order, I had preferred an appeal but I do not know the provisions of the law/rules under which I had preferred that appeal."
This means that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was any law under which he could file the departmental appeal A and, therefore, his so-called departmental appeal is to be treated as grievance notice. Then the petitioner seems to have also sent formal grievance notice which is Annexure 'F' to the grievance petition having been sent on 13-3-1988 and, therefore, also still within the limitation period. However, it has been held in 1983 PLC 458 that in case of more than one grievance notice within prescribed limitation which in fact is not envisaged by the law, the limitation would run from the date of reply to the first notice and the second notice would not extend the limitation period for petition to Labour Court. Accordingly, the limitation in the present matter would run from the so-called departmental appeal (undated) received by respondent on 7-1-1988 which was in fact admittedly replied on 14-2-1988 vide Annexure '0' to the grievance petition beyond the period of fifteen days mentioned in section 25-A(2) of I.R.O., 1969.
Consequently, the period for filing the grievance petition before the Labour Court would be two months under section 25-A(4) of I.R.O., 1969 after the abovementioned fifteen days after undated departmental appeal was received by respondent on 7-1-1988 and thus the petitioner could file the grievance petition by 21-3-1988. Whereas, this grievance petition has been filed on 6-4-1988 and, therefore, the same is hopelessly time-barred. In his written arguments, the learned Advocate for petitioner has contended that this petition is within time and that the same could be filed after decision of the departmental appeal as is held in 1983 PLC 437, 1981 PLC 905 and 1987 PLC 380.
However, the perusal of the abovementioned citations relied upon by the petitioner shows that the same are not applicable in the instant case because petitioner has failed to prove that under the law he could file any departmental appeal.
7. Reverting to the merits of the case, it is seen that the petitioner has simply made allegations that the domestic enquiry against him was irregular, impartial and illegal but he has failed to give the details of alleged irregularity, partiality and illegality. On the contrary, he has admitted to have participated in the enquiry having cross-examined the witness appearing against him. From the enquiry proceedings ExhA/7, it is seen that vide Exh. A/5, he was asked to show cause regarding his unauthorised absence from 11-8-1987 upto the date of said notice i,e, 24-8-1987 and also for proceeding to Rawalpindi without obtaining prior permission to leave the station. He was also informed of the previous warnings issued against him regarding his unauthrised absence.
However, the report of the Enquiry Officer shows that he has been held responsible for the act of misconduct of remaining absent unauthorisedly for more than ten days for the reason that he has failed to produce the medical certificate of Rawalpindi when according to petitioner he had received injury there and instead he has produced the medical certificate of the Medical Officer of Surogdhan (District Jhelum) which shows that he was suffering from Sciatica. Besides, contrary to his averments in the grievance notice (undated) and the grievance petition he has stated in his statement during the domestic enquiry that he received the telephonic message regarding the ailment of his mother on 11-8-1987 which means that he was still at Karachi on that day. Whereas, medical certificate of the Medical Officer Surogdhan is dated 11-8-1988 which means that the same is prima facie false. Moreover, no illegality or irregularity seems to have been committed during the domestic enquiry and, therefore, there is no reason to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer.
8. Under these circumstances, this grievance petition is hereby dismissed.