' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 30-5-2002 passed by learned A Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha whereby grievance petition brought by respondent was accepted.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent was serving with appellant- Bank as Cashier and on 13-1-1998 he was served with charge-sheet. He filed reply but appellant found his reply unsatisfactory and regular inquiry was conducted against him. After receiving report of Inquiry Officer, respondent was dismissed from service on 17-7-1999. He served grievance notice and filed grievance petition. The respondent stated that dismissal order is mala fide and inquiry is defective. The appellant mentioned in reply that inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with law. The charge against respondent was proved, therefore, competent authority dismissed him from service. Learned trial Court recorded evidence and accepted the grievance petition brought by respondent vide judgment 30-5-2002. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, respondent was serving as Cashier with appellant-Bank but he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 17-7-1999. He served grievance notice but did not file grievance petition rather filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal but the same was returned for presenting before competent forum. The respondent filed CPLA before Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same was dismissed on 9-1-2002. Thereafter, respondent filed grievance petition before Labour Court on 1-2-2002. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that grievance petition is time-barred. Further submits that respondent had filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the grievance petition that there is no ground/sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the grievance petition. He has argued that learned trial Court has not given any finding on this point, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and grievance petition is liable to be dismissed being time-barred.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that after serving grievance notice, respondent had been prosecuting his appeal before Service Tribunal and after dismissal of the same he had filed appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was dismissed on 9-1-2002 on the ground that in relation to the matters of employees of Allied Bank of Pakistan, after privatization the jurisdiction vests with the learned Labour Court and respondent should approach Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. Further submits that there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the grievance petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above respondent was dismissed from service on 17-7-1999. However, he filed grievance petition on 1-2-2002. So grievance petition is time-baried. Admittedly after serving grievance notice, respondent filed appeal before. Federal Service Tribunal and on 18-11-2000 the same was returned for presenting before competent forum. The respondent filed appeal thereagainst before Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was dismissed on 9-1- 2002. However, as mentioned earlier respondent filed grievance petition on 1-2-2002 which shows that he remained silent for 23 days even after order dated 9-1-2002 passed by Honourable Supreme Court. The respondent has filed application for condonation of delay in filing the grievance petition but he has not mentioned any ground for condonation of delay. The application under section 5 of Limitation Act brought by respondent reads as under:--- "(1) That the petitioner has filed the accompanying petition before this Honourable Court, the contents of which be read and considered as an integral part of this application.
(2) That against the impugned order of dismissal dated 17-7-1999 in view of the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, the petitioner preferred his service appeal before the Honourable Service Tribunal bearing No,1241(L) of 1999, which was returned on 18-11-2000 for want of jurisdiction along with appeals of certain other colleagues of the Allied Bank of Pakistan, the matter of which was assailed before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and on 9-1-2002, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to decide that in relation to the matters of the employees of Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited after privatization, the jurisdiction rest with the learned Labour Court and the petitioner should invoke the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court for the redressal of his grievance. As such there has been left no alternative remedy available to the petitioner except to invoke the statutory of this Honourable Court for the redressal of his grievance.
' Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that delay, if any, in filing the accompanying petition, the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice with the applicant and the case of the applicant may please be decided on its own merits."
' It is clear from the said application that respondent has not given any explanation for delay in filing the grievance petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in service matters strict view of limitation should be taken. Further submits that even if time spent before Federal Service Tribunal and Honourable Supreme Court is excluded, there is no explanation about delay after 9-1- 2002, therefore, grievance petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. He has relied upon the case of Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002. SC 101 and Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore and another 2007 PLC 64. Admittedly grievance petition is time-barred. If time consumed during litigation is excluded even then there is unexplained delay of 23 days. It is well-settled that respondent was bound to explain each day's delay but as mentioned above he has not given any reason/sufficient cause. So there is no ground for condonation of delay in filing the grievance petition. In these circumstances I find that grievance petition brought by respondent is time-barred and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside and grievance petition brought by respondent is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.