1. ' MUHAMMAD NADIR KHAN, J.--- This labour appeal under section 48 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) is directed against the order, dated 13-7-2006 passed by Third Labour Court, Balochistan at Hub (hereinafter referred to as to the Labour Court) whereby grievance application filed by the appellant under section 46 of I.R.O. 2002 has been dismissed.
2. ' Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant/worker) was in service of the respondent-Bank since 15-5-1990 where he was inducted as messenger. The applicant/worker claimed that on 12-8-2004 he was not allowed to join his duty and his services were verbally terminated. The applicant approached the Bank for his reinstatement and his such request was recommended by Chief Minister but his request was not entertained, thereafter on 31-3-2005 he served the respondent-Bank with grievance notice through T.C.S. Applicant finally prayed for setting aside of his termination order and reinstatement, he also claimed Rs,2,50,000 which he spent on his medical treatment.
3. ' Along with grievance application the applicant/worker filed application for condonation of delay contending that no limitation runs against oral termination order, being void order.
4. ' Respondent-Bank resisted the application by filing of rejoinder wherein number of preliminary objections were raised with regard to the maintainability of the application which was stated to be hopelessly barred by time. On merits too the plea of the applicant/worker was denied.
5. ' Applicant/worker in support of his plea filed his affidavit and he was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent-Bank. In rebuttal the respondent-Bank filed the affidavits of Saleem Ahmed and Muhammad Zafar who were cross-examined by the authorized representative of the applicant.
6. ' Learned Labour Court concluded the proceedings by means of order, dated 13-7-2006 whereby the application filed by the applicant/worker has been dismissed.
7. ' Mr. Azam Jan Zarkoon counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa counsel for the respondent-Bank have been heard at length and record of the case perused. Record shows that the parties are in agreement with regard to applicant's being employee of respondent-Bank.
8. Further it is also not disputed that the services of applicant were terminated with effect from 12-8- 2004. Admittedly no termination order was issued. The plea of the applicant/worker was that he was gate stopped and not allowed to join his services. On the other hand the respondent-Bank has pleaded that applicant absented himself with effect from 12-8-2004. The record reflects that the applicant/worker after his termination/gate stop on 12-8-2004 approached the Chief Minister vide application, dated 28-9-2004 for his reinstatement. It seems that his application was forwarded to the Bank with recommendation of Chief Minister, however the applicant/worker was not reinstated.
9. The applicant/worker thereafter gave the respondent-Bank with grievance notice, dated 31-3- 2005. The contents of application, dated 28-9-2004 show that the applicant/worker was well aware of his removal from service but he did not approach the Bank for his reinstatement and left the matter unattended for period of more than 6 months whereafter he issued the grievance notice dated 31-3-2005. Under section 46(1) of I.R.O. 2002 a worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing either himself or through his shopsteward or Collective Bargaining Agent within one month of the day of which cause of such grievance arises. Furthermore, the applicant was to approach the Labour Court within a period to two months from the date of reply of the grievance notice which the. Employer was to make within 15 days of grievance being brought to his notice. Hence the total period which was available to the applicant for approaching the Labour Court was three months and 15 days, but the grievance application has been filed by the applicant on 23-4-2005 i,e, after eight months and eleven days.
10. In such view of the matter the applicant/worker is found to have issued the grievance notice after expiry of period provided by subsection (1) of section 46 of I.R.O.
11. 2002. Similarly his grievance application has been filed after the period provided by section 46 of I.R.O.
12. 2002.
13. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to get the delay condoned on the ground that verbal termination order was void and no limitation runs against the void order, but the applicant who was aware of his termination of service, w,e,f, 12-8-2004 approached the Chief Minister for his reinstatement but did not adopt the procedure provided by section 46 of I.R.O. 2002 for redressal of his grievance. In such eventuality the delay which had occurred on account of negligence of the applicant cannot be condoned. Hence without going into the controversy about applicant being a permanent or a daily wages worker the dismissal of his application on the ground that it was time-barred is found to be unexceptionable calling for no interference.
14. ' The appeal, therefore, being without any merits dismissed.