DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No, III at Karachi, dated 8-11- 1988, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was admittedly employed as an Officer Grade-III by the appellants hank. On 17-3-1983, he was charge-sheeted for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty from 23-8-1982 and after domestic enquiry, he was ordered to be removed from service, vide order, dated 2-10-1983. He filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 7-8-1983. The appellants resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the respondent was not a workman and that the grievance petition was time-barred and further that the charge had been proved against him in the domestic enquiry.
3. I have heard Mr. Noor Muhammad, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The charge-sheet has been produced as Annexure `P' by the respondent alongwith the grievance petition which shows that it has been issued under the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, but, the order of dismissal/removal from service, Annexure 'A' shows that it has been issued under the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980. It is now a settled law that the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Rules, 1980 which are framed on the recommendations of the Wage Commission report are not Statutory Rules and do not supersede the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973 which are Statutory Rules. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Staff Rules 1980 would not be sustainable. The respondent, if he is a workman, had a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the enforcement of the right if any guaranteed under Rules of 1973. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, HYD-440 of 1987, decided on 30-9-1989 and also on the decision of learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court in the Constitution Petition No, D-684 of 1982 in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others, decided on 26- 1-1989.
5. However, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, the workman has to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer within 3 months from the date of cause of action and has to file grievance petition within 2 months from the date of the communication from the employer to the grievance notice and if he does not receive such communication from the employer, he has to file his grievance petition within 2 months after waiting for 15 days for the receipt of the communication from the employer. It is also a settled law that the time consumed in pursuing the departmental appeal, provided under Rules has also to be excluded from this period of limitation under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
6. It will be 'seen that the order of dismissal was passed on 2-10-1983 which order has been produced by the respondent alongwith his grievance petition as Annexure 'A'. He has mentioned about the date of order in his grievance petition also. He nowhere alleges that this order was not received by him or it was received by him very late. The grievance petition would obviously be time-barred if this date of order is taken into consideration as date of cause of action. I find that this objection was raised at the time of the admission of the grievance petition which was admitted subject to the objection on the point of limitation. The respondent has produced one mercy petition for reinstatement in Bank's service which is Annexure 'Y' to his grievance petition. It is dated 27-3-1986 and shows the endorsement of the appellants to have been received by him on 30-3-1986. It was replied by letter, Annexure 'Z' dated 10-7-1986, in which he had been informed that he had been advised that his appeal had already been `filed' at the behest of a competent authority, vide letter, dated 29-5-1986.
7. He has also filed another Annexure `Z-1' which is dated 11-12-1983, which in fact is an appeal against the order of removal of service, dated 2-10-1983 which shows to have been received by the appellant on 8-10-1983. He has not filed any reply to this appeal. In his mercy appeal Exbt.'Y' he has not referred to this previous appeal nor to any order passed on that appeal. The appellants alongwith their reply statement have filed the original appeal which is Annexure `A' dated 11-12- 1983, which in fact is the original of Annexure `Z-1' and a reply to this appeal which is dated 1-4-1984 is Annexure 'B' under which he has been informed that his appeal had been rejected. This letter shows that it was sent by registered A/D on the same address of the respondent which he has shown in his grievance petition and, therefore, would be presumed to have been received by him unless otherwise proved. The respondent in his affidavit-in-evidence has not denied the receipt of this letter. The learned Labour Court has taken the date of the letter Annexure 'Z' which is dated 10- 7-1986 to be the date of cause of action and, therefore, has held that the appeal was within time. It may be pointed that in this letter, reference is made to another letter, dated 29-5-1986 under which the respondent was advised that this appeal had been filed. This creates little confusion. Annexure 'B' produced by the appellants alongwith written statement shows that the appeal was rejected on 1-4-1984 and as already pointed that the respondent has not denied the receipt of this letter. It appears that the respondent had been repeating appeals and the advice, dated 29-5-1986 referred to in Annexure `Z-1' may be with regard to some other repeated appeal.
8. It may be pointed that the Staff Service Rules of 1980 as well as 1973 provide for one appeal or one application for review of order provided it is filed within 3 months from the order against which the appeal or application for review is made. These rules do not contemplate 2 or more appeals against the same order. Therefore, only the period consumed in decision of first appeal could be excluded from the period of limitation and cause of action would be deemed to have accrued to the workman from the date of decision on first appeal.
9. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that for the first time the decision of appeal was communicated to the respondent vide order Annexure 'Z' dated 10-7-1986, then, we find that no grievance notice, as required under subsection (1) of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, has been given by the respondent to the appellants after receipt of reply of the appeal. The letter, Annexure 'Y' is dated 27-3-1986, and is prior to the date of decision, if the date of Annexure 'Z' is taken to be the date of cause of action and, therefore, Annexure cannot be considered as the grievance notice as contemplated in subsection (1) of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. It is also a settled law that no grievance petition can be entertained unless the workman first brought the grievance to the notice of his employer, as required under subsection (1) of section 25-A, LR.O., 1969.
10. The upshot of this discussion is that either the grievance petition filed on 7-8-1986 is time- barred if the date of cause of action is taken as 1-4-1984 or it is not maintainable if the date of cause of action is taken to be 10-7-1986 or 29-5-1986 because neither any grievance notice after this date is alleged to have been served upon the appellants nor the same has been produced in evidence before the learned Labour Court. In either case, the grievance petition would not I be maintainable even if the respondent is held to be a 'workman'.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned Iorder passed by the learned Labour Court.