' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 3-8- 2002 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Camp at Karachi, whereby Appeal No,1801(K) of 1998, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that petitioner was dismissed by respondent-Bank under Rule 37(h) of National Bank of Pakistan Staff. Service Rules, 1980 on 1-11- 1987 on the allegation that he, while posted as Manager at Jati Branch in the year 1986, advanced certain interest free agricultural loans to 234 small farmers in the light of Circular No,857 dated 17- 4-1984 but respondent-Bank found irregularities in advancing the said loans. He, however,- denied the allegation and contested the inquiry but was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service. Petitioner though preferred departmental appeal on 26-12-1987, but remained silent and did not pursue the remedy till 14-5-1998 on which date, he served a grievance 2005 Marghoob Ahmed v. President, National Bank of Pakistan 1387 (Abdul Hameed Dogar, J) notice upon respondents under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). It was on 1-8-1989, for the first time, he filed grievance petition in the Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad which was, however, allowed and was reinstated in service vide judgment dated 3-12-1991. Respondent-Bank challenged the same in appeal before the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi, which was allowed vide order dated 18-9-1995 and the order of Labour Court was set aside. The petitioner assailed the same in Constitution Petition No,D-1997 of 1995 before the learned High Court of Sindh which was pending adjudication when an amendment was brought in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and section 2-A was inserted on 10-6-1997 whereby service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under Federal Law or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has controlling share or interest was declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization would be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of the Act. Accordingly, the said Constitution petition was disposed of vides order, dated 12th October, 1998 having become abated. On 4-11-1998, petitioner filed appeal before the learned Tribunal at Karachi, which was dismissed, vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner and Syed Haider Ali Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. The relevant paragraph whereby petitioner was non-suited by the Tribunal is reproduced as under:-- "Regarding the point of limitation, it is true that under the Bank Rules there is provision for departmental appeal but the respondent could only date for the result of the departmental appeal, for a reason time. In this case he has taken more than one year and seven months and thus, delay cannot, therefore, be condoned.
' Thus, looking to the aspect of limitation, which was not condoned by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and after making calculation, it appears that whatever has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent that after filing of the departmental appeal on 26-12-1987, the appellant went in deep slumber and after 503 days he served grievance notice under section 25-A upon the respondents and though under law he was to file his grievance petition within 15 days, but he filed his grievance petition before Labour Court on 1-8-1989. In such a way, we are of the view that the appeal is barred by limitation as after filing the departmental appeal on 26-12-1987 he was required under law to approach the competent forum for the redressal of his grievance, but this was not done by him due to reasons best known to him and all of sudden he got up from the deep slumber and had sent grievance notice after 503 days to the respondents. When the same remained unresponded, he filed grievance petition after 78 days. In such circumstances we refrain from making any discussion on merits and considering the fact that the appeal was filed at a belated stage, the same being hopelessly time-barred, cannot be entertained."
5. As discussed above, it was during the pendency of Constitution petition before the learned High Court, section 2-A was inserted in the Act on 10-6-1997 whereby forum for filing the appeal was also changed. A corresponding amendment was also made and as per section 6 of the Act, all suits, appeals, or applications regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of this Act shall abate forthwith and a period of 90 days was allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate Tribunal. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner did not invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal within 90 days as stipulated by section 6 of the Act but remained silent and filed appeal before the Tribunal on 4-11- 1998 with a delay of 488 days. Irrespective of the above delay, appeal was preferred before the Tribunal with further delay of 22 days.
6. Accordingly, we do not find any justification to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Service Tribunal. Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.