1. The applicant has filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, against the respondent praying for his re-instatement in service with full back benefits.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant/petitioner was working as a cashier since 22nd November, 1971 in the establishment of the respondents and as such he was a permanent workman. The applicant was charge-sheeted on 20th October, 1975 to which he replied. The respondents, without considering the explanation to the charge--sheet, held enquiry against him.
3. After completion of the enquiry, the applicant was dismissed from service on 6th April, 1976, mechanically and as such it is not maintainable in law. The applicant, after giving the grievance notice to the respondents filed the above case.
4. The respondents contested the above case and filed their reply statement stating therein that none of the rights of the applicant under any award or settlement have been infringed. The applicant having accepted his full and final dues cannot be said to have left any grievance against the respondents and as such there exists no relationship of master and servant between the applicant and the respondents. The application of the applicant is barred by limitation. The respondents have further 'stated that they gave the charge-sheet to the applicant to which he replied. Since the explanation to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry against the applicant. . The enquiry report shows that the charges were proved against the applicant and as such second show---cause-notice was issued to the applicant. The applicant was ; ' .M an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter the applicant` v. As dismissed from service on 6th April, 1976, in the light of the findings of the Enquiry Officer arid in accordance with law.
5. The applicant filed his affidavit in support of his main application in which he reiterated the contents of the main application to be true and correct. On this affidavit the learned representative of the respondents cross-examined the applicant. The respondents examined Ansar Ahmad Khan, the Chief Accountant and Secretary, and Muhammad Najmullah, the Executive of the establishment of the respondents and the Enquiry Officer, who were cross-examined by the Advocate of the applicant.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned representative of the respondents only as the Advocate of the applicant filed adjournment application, which was rejected mainly on the ground that the case was very old and the learned Advocate had already taken two proceedings adjournments.
7. Then the case was put off for order on 1st September, 1979 and then on-2nd September, 1979, but the applicant and his Advocate did not come during this period to pursue their matter.
8. It is worth while to consider first the legal objection of the respon--dents before dwelling upon the facts of the case. The respondents have raised a legal objection in para (iii) of their reply statement that the application of the applicant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is time barred under the provisions of section 25-A(6) of I.R.O., 1969. From the perusal of the main applica--tion under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969, I find that the applicant filed his main application under section 25-A on 17th August, 1976. The applicant has stated in para 7 of his application that on 6th April, 1976 he was dismissed from service. This shows that the applicant has filed his application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, exactly after four months and 11 days from the cause of action. He should have filed his application under section 25-A within a period of two months from the date of cause of action as required under subsection (6) of sec--tion 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, which was subsisting and operative when 'he applicant had filed his application. In fact the applicant was not required to give the grievance notice to the respondents before filing 'is, case under section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969. However, this subsection (6) 'of section 25-A was repealed on 28th January, 1977 by the Ordinance 9 of 1977.
9. In case of termination of employment of workman as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay off, lockout or otherwise, he has to approach the Labour Court within a period of two months under subsection (6) of section 25-A of 1.R.0. 1969, prior to 28th January, 1977. I am fortified with this view by the judgment of Lahore High Court in case of Arif Hussain Shah v. Director Administration, Electrical Equipment Manufacturing Co. Limited and another (PLD 1979 Lah. 603). I am also fortified with this view by the judgment in Appeals Nos. 203 of 1977 and 14 of 1977 passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal on 2nd August, 1977 and also by the judgment in Appeal No. KAR.-9 of 1978. In fact 'this view of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was also confirmed by the Lahore High Court in the above-cited case. It was, therefore, necessary for the applicant to have filed application under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969, within a period of two months, but the applicant filed the above case after four months and 11 days and as such it is barred by limitation and not maintainable in law. In fact the applicant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.
10. Therefore this application is barred by limitation.
11. Ansar Ahmad, the Chief Accountant and Secretary of tile Establish--ment of the respondents, has produced Annexures "K" and "L" with his affidavit-in-evidence which shows that the applicant had received all his legal dues in full and final settlement of his claim. This shows that he had acquiesced his right, if any.
12. In view of the above discussion, I, without going further into the merit of the case, hold that the application of the applicant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 besides having no merit, is barred by limitation. Accordingly it is dismissed.