' Yaqoob Hashim was an electrician, working with Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Inter-City Depot, Multan, and was retired from service on 21-4-1993, which order he challenged by filing a grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan. His petition was accepted on 3-1-1995 by the Labour Court; his retirement was declared to be unlawful and he was ordered to be reinstated in service within fifteen days, on return of the pensionary dues that he had received from the management, P.R.T.C. Has come up in appeal to this tribunal, assailing the soundness of the decision, dated 3-1-1995 rendered by the learned Labour Court.
2. Respondent had opted for his retirement, after having put in more than 25 years of service, under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme, with effect from 21-4-1993. He took up the plea before the Labour Court that his full dues were not paid to him, and as the retirement could not take effect before payment of his dues in entirety, he would be deemed not to have retired. Presiding Officer of the learned Labour Court, in keeping with his temperament and approach, was swayed by this frail and flimsy plea of the employee and struck down the order of retirement, as being invalid and in- operative. It is to be borne in mind that the employee had been in receipt of all of his pensionary benefits; and the balance amount, he laid claim to, did not really matter much, as emoluments for a period of only three months remained to be paid, even according to the employee. On that count too, P.R.T.C. Had really exhibited no disinclination, since it was averred that the employee had himself not come forward to receive his remaining dues. In actual practice, the employee had received his other dues also, which he was eligible to have.
3. It seems that the respondent was repenting after having expressed his agreeability to retire under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme, and he wilfully deferred receipt of the remaining dues, which the P.R.T.C. Management was willing to part with. He, however, could not lawfully be permitted to retrace his steps and withdraw the option he had vountarily given earlier.
4. The respondent was retired on 21-4-1993, and he served the grievance notice on the employer six months thereafter on 21-10-1993. It was obviously time-barred. In the opinion of the Labour Court, the cause of action being continuting, the grievance notice could not be termed as barred by the law of limitation. This is a fallacious reasoning indeed, since if such an argument is adopted, the provisions of limitation, enshrined in the statutes, would become meaningless. When an action is taken against an employee, he evidently feels aggrieved and the grievance enures perpetually, unless and until the action is undone. The law has provided three months period for a grievance notice, to emanate from the employee. There is wisdom behind it. If the employee makes a move within three months, his grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition within next 15 days would be entertainable; and if he sleeps over the matter and does not feel like agitating it before the forum envisages by law, the cause of action, if any, will be deemed to have come to an end, by efflux of time. In his zeal to help the employee, the Presiding Officer of the Court below has gone too out of the way in sustaining his cause of action and accepting his plea of having unlawfully been retired, although in fact order of his retirement had validly been issued and the employee had not been deprived of his dues; and by reason of lack of action on his part, within time, he had really lost the cause or the basis for a legal action, if any, against the employer.
5. The reasons recorded by the learned lower Court in the impugned judgment are thus, evidently unsound and untenable; and I find it difficult to uphold the verdict, with the result that the appeal succeeds, and the same is hereby allowed, with, of course, no order as to costs.