' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- Appellant challenged the acceptance. Of resignation dated 31-7-1996, through grievance notice, dated 11-9-1997 (Exh.P.4) and thereafter petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 read with Standing ,Order 12(3) of Ordinance, 1968, which was filed on 23-9-1997. An application for condonation of delay was also filed wherein the appellant sought condonation of delay, on the ground that Court permitted the appellant to tile fresh petition, therefore, time spent in pressing earlier petition i,e, 11-11-1996 to 2-9-1997, is to be excluded. The condonation of delay is sought on the ground, which is not sufficient cause. Appellant cannot take advantage of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the appellant has not approached wrong forum, as the earlier petition was before the same forum. Learned Labour Court rejected the grievance petition on the ground that appellant was relieved from service on the basis of his resignation and not on the ground urged in earlier petition viz. Verbal termination.
2. Appellant has joined the respondent-Bank on 31-11-1995 as godown keeper for 2-1/2 months, but continued working with bank until 17-9-1996. He performed his duties as assistant-cum-cashier, while his appointment was as godown keeper. The application of appellant was for the post of godown keeper. Appellant served upon the respondent a grievance notice dated 28-9-1996 (Exh.P.1) against his verbal termination and thereafter he filed the grievance petition (Exh.P.2).
Respondent during the pendency of petition produced before Labour Court No,4, letter of resignation of the appellant dated 31-7-1996, which according to the respondent-Bank was accepted on the same day. Learned Labour Court vide order, dated 2-9-1997, rejected the petition under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Through order dated 2-9-1997. Learned Court, however, observed that appellant can file a fresh petition as to his grievance on the basis of resignation or its acceptance.
Appellant instead of challenging the order, dated 2-9-1997, filed fresh petition, after serving grievance notice (Exh.P.4) and thereafter petition under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 meaning thereby that he admitted the factum of resignation and assailed it on the ground thus, he was induced to resign. Resignation, was within his knowledge and same was not challenged. There was no reasonable justification that why petitioner has C not challenged his removal on forceful resignation and opted to challenge his removal on the basis of so-called verbal removal. The delay in such circumstances cannot he condoned.
3. Additionally learned Labour Court has rightly held that appellant has applied for the post of godown keeper and was appointed as such and voluntarily resigned from the same post which was accepted on the same day. The removal order will take effect on the date when it was passed and communication is immaterial. Learned Court reached conclusion after considering the respective contention of parties and after properly appraising the evidence of parties.
4. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order/judgment which has been passed in accordance with law. This appeal has no merits and is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.