' This appeal filed under section 48 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002) is directed against the order dated 16-4-2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The appellant being a sweeper of Department of Punjab Small Industries Corporation, Regional Office, Bahawalpur, was relieved of his duties on account of tendering his resignation which was accepted by the competent authority vide order dated 31-5-1997, and the appellant was deemed to have been retired with effect from the said date. This order was challenged by him through grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O.Before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur, who dismissed the same mainly on the ground of limitation, vide the order impugned through the instant appeal.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Undeniably the appellant was ousted from service vide order of the competent authority dated 31-5-1997 against which he filed W.P.No,5764 of 1999/BWP on 6-7-1999; the said Constitutional petition was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn, thereafter the appellant moved the grievance petition to Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur, on 6-7-2001. This being the situation, I asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how he could justify the delay in filing the grievance petition? It is replied that agitating the matter before a wrong forum in good faith will be a good ground for condoning the delay in filing the said grievance petition. In the present state of affairs, I am not convinced with his submission as the appellant was fully aware of the impugned departmental order soon after passing of the same as is also evident from the undisputed fact that he had made an application for release of dues with reference thereto. He filed the said Constitutional petition on 6-7-1999 against the impugned departmental order after a period of almost more than two years and there is no convincing explanation put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant as to what for the appellant remained inactive qua his alleged rights.
5. I am fully convinced that the impugned order has been passed on a due appreciation of law and facts calling for no interference in the instant appeal, which stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.