DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 2-1-1991 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, whereby his grievance application was rejected as time-barred.
2. I have heard Mr. Sycd Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The appellant joined as Clerk on 16-6-1978 and was promoted on 22-4-1987 in BPS-11. One Maula Bux Moughal, respondent No, 4, joined on 16-7-1977. He was promoted in BPS-11 on 9-4-1987 and was given BPS-15 on 10-10-1989. Abdul Majeed Bhurt, respondent No, 2 joined as Storekeeper on 8- 12-1987 in BPS-15. Niaz A. Moughal, respondent No, 3, joined as Office Assistant on 16-6-1988 in BPS-
15. On representation of the appellant respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were downgraded to BPS-11 but were subsequently restored to BPS-15 on 9-10-1989. The appellant made representation on 5-11- 1989 praying that he should also be given BPS, 15 from 22-4-1987 when he was promoted as Office Assistant. This representation was rejected by letter, dated 27-1-1990. Thereafter he filed appeal on 25-2-1990 which was rejected as time-barred on 9-4-1990. He, therefore, gave grievance notice on 25-4-1990 which remained unreplied and thereafter filed grievance petition on 17-6-1990. The respondents contested the application on the ground that it was time-barred and moved application under Order VII, Rule XI, C.P.C. For rejection of application.
4. The learned Labour Court has held that the appellant had only one right of appeal and had no right of representation therefore the time taken in making representation and awaiting decision was time wasted and such time was not condonable. He has relied on 1986 SCM R 30.
5. The cause of action apparently accrued to the appellant on 9-10-1989 when respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who were appointed as Office Assistant after his appointment were restored to BPS-15. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant did have knowledge of the restoration of BPS-15 to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 9-10-1989. However, it cannot be doubted, that at the time he made Representation on 5-11-1989 he did have such knowledge. No rules have been produced to show that the appellant had right of representation but admittedly he had right of appeal. The Representation in fact contains the ground and the prayer which are made in appeal. This, therefore, would be considered as appeal. Only because the heading show 'representation' would not be barred to treat as an appeal. It was actually considered and rejected by an order, dated 27- 1-1990 but there is nothing on record to show as to when this order reached the respondent.
However, the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 27-1-1990. The grievance notice has been given on 25-4-1990 viz. Within three months from the date of this cause of action. Therefore, the grievance notice cannot be considered to be time-barred. The grievance notice admittedly had not been replied. The grievance application has been filed on 17-8-1990 viz. Within two months of grievance notice. Therefore, it also cannot be considered time-barred.
6. In view of above discussion I hold the grievance notice and grievance petition are within time and, therefore, set aside the order of learned Labour Court and remand the case back for re-trial.