1. ' MUHAMMAD NADIR KHAN, J.--- This labour appeal under section 47(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as IRO, 2002) is directed against the order, dated 21-12- 2006 passed by First Labour Court, Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the grievance petition under section 46 of IRO, 2002 filed by the appellant against the respondent has been dismissed.
2. ' The case of appellant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant/worker) is that in February, 1977 he was appointed as Cashier in Muslim Commercial Bank Liaquat Bazaar Branch Quetta. During service the applicant on account of his, good performance and handwork was awarded cash award, letter of appreciation etc. The applicant was posted in different branches of the Bank where he demonstrated his good performance and during his service neither the Bank nor any customer complained against him. The Bank keeping in view the performance of the applicant, promoted him as Grade-3 Officer and he was also moved to the next higher grade with effect from 1-1-2003.
3. Subsequently, on 27-1-2003 the applicant was served with charge-sheet for the wrong counted by the other employees of the Bank. Applicant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 30-1-2003 whereafter he was served with supplementary charge-sheet dated 4-4-2003 which too was replied by him The Bank thereafter appointed Mr. Muhammad Ameen AVP as Enquiry Officer who submitted his report and the services of the applicant were terminated vide order, dated 17-7- 2003. The applicant filed appeal before respondent on 27-7-2003 bin received no reply. The applicant thereafter filed servicAe appeal before Federal Service Tribunal on g-1-2004 which was dismissed vide order, dated 26-4-2004 for want of jurisdiction. After dismissal of the service appeal, applicant issued grievance notice under section 46 of IRO to the respondents on 29-5- 2004 which was not replied by the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant filed application under section 46 of IRO before First Labour Court, Balochistan Quetta on 29-6-2004 wherein he challenged his termination order dated 17-7-2003.
4. ' The respondent resisted the application by filing of rejoinder wherein number of preliminary objections including application being time-barred were raised and on merits too the plea of the applicant was resisted.
5. ' Learned Labour Court out of pleadings of the parties framed following issues:--
(1) Whether the petitioner does not come within the definition of worker workmen IRO, 2002. If so what would be the effect?
(2) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of the present application?
(3) Whether applicant served any valid grievance notice under law within the contemplation of section 46 IRO, 2002?
(4) Whether application is time-barred or otherwise?
(5) Whether applicant dismissed properly after proper domestic inquiry under law?
(6) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for?
(7) Relief?
6. ' Applicant in support of his plea in addition to his affidavit filed affidavits of A.W.1 Muhammad Sharif, A.W.2 Ejaz Ahmed and A.W.3 Haji Akhtar Muhammad. Applicant as well as his witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent. In rebuttal respondent filed the affidavits of R.W.1 Muhammad Nasir Anjum and R.W.2 Muhammad Refique.
7. ' Learned Labour Court concluded the proceedings by means of order, dated 21-12-2006 whereby the grievance petition has been dismissed holding it to be time-barred.
8. ' Mr. Muhammad Usman Yousafzai counsel for the appellant/ applicant argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case which explain the delay in filing of the grievance petition as the applicant due to bona fide mistake of law filed service appeal before Federal Service Tribunal which was finally held to be without jurisdiction and dismissed vide order, dated 26-4-2004 copy whereof was issued to the applicant on 12-5-2004. The applicant thereafter without wasting any time issued grievance notice dated 29-5-2006 which was not replied. Hence he filed the grievance petition on 19-6-2006. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the grievance notice as well as the grievance petition excluding the, earlier period during which the applicant bonafidely pursued the matter before Federal Service Tribunal, were within time. The counsel for the applicant supported his plea by the following case-law:-- ' PLD 1995 SC 629 and 1995 SCM R 1655.
9. ' Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwah learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and argued that the grievance notice was issued by the applicant was time-barred. The applicant did not file any application for condonation of delay, in absence of which the delay could not be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the period during which the applicant perused the matter before Federal Service Tribunal if even excluded then too his grievance petition was filed with delay as the period from 17-7-2003 to 5-1-2004, i,e, the date of dismissal of applicant from service till the date of filing of appeal before Federal Service Tribunal remained unaccounted for. Furthermore, the service appeal of the appellant before Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed on 26-4-2004, whereafter the grievance notice was issued on 29-5-2004, whereas under section 46 of IRO the grievance notice was to be served within a period of one month. The grievance petition, therefore, on said score was also time-barred. Grievance petition filed on the .Basis of time-barred notice was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the respondent supported his arguments by following case-law:-- ' PLD 1988 SC 83 and 2007 PLC 46.
10. ' The facts of the case referred to hereinabove reflect that the appellant/applicant was removed from service on 17-7-2003 whereafter he filed the appeal before respondents on 27-7-2003 which was not replied. Thereafter, he filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal on 5-1-2004 which was dismissed on 26-4-2004 for want of jurisdiction. The order, dated 26-4-2004 reflects that appellant/applicant was present on the date when order, dated 26-4-2004 was passed, however, copy of the order was issued to him on 12-5-2004. The facts and circumstances of the case though reflect that the appellant was serving the respondent-Bank as Officer bonafidely filed the appeal before Federal Service Tribunal and the time consumed by him in pursuing the appeal before Federal Service Tribunal need to be excluded while after dismissal of appeal on 26-4-2004 he received the copy of order, dated 12-5-2004. Thereafter he served the respondent-Bank with notice on 29-5-2004. The question which cropped up was that, that whether the date for issuance of grievance notice is to be reckoned from the date of dismissal of appeal by Federal Service Tribunal or from the date of issuance of the copy of the order, i,e, 12-5-2004. The Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment 2007 PLC 64 being relied by the counsel for respondent/Bank refused to grant leave to the worker in a case having somewhat similar facts and circumstances as the worker even after dismissal of the constitution petition and Intra-Court appeal, did not issue the grievance notice within period of one month. The relevant observations read as under:--- "In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxtaposition, then it is clear that the petitioner had served grievance notice on 7-11-2002 after 3 years and 4-1/2 months and thereafter filed grievance petition on 25-11-2002. In case the cause of action accrued on 30-9-2002 to him after dismissing of his I.C.A. By the learned High Court, even then he had not served grievance notice to the respondents in terms of section 46(1) of I.R.O.2002 within specified period of one month. It is a settled principle of law that the question of limitation under section 46, of the I.R.O. Has to be rigidly construed on the well-known maxim that no party is allowed to circumvent the provisions of the statute of limitation. It is yet another principle of law that the party approaching Court of competent jurisdiction for redress of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side. See Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Salirn PLD 1995 SC 396=1995 SCM R 546; Rehmat Ullah and others v. Ulyas Khan 1968 SCM R 975 and Pakistan Railway v. Ghulam Sarwar 1989 SCM R 864."
11. ' From the above observations of the Honourable Supreme Court it is clear that even after excluding the period spent pursuing the matter before the wrong forum, the limitation would start from the date of dismissal and not from the date of issuance or receiving the copy of the order of dismissal of the appeal. As stated hereinabove the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 26-4-2004. The order reflects that the appellant was present on the said date and the order was announced in his presence, therefore, he was very much in knowledge of the order, dated 26-4- 2004. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that when the appellant applied for issuance of order, dated 26-4-2004 passed by Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad. The letter dated 12-5- 2004 rather reflects that copy of order was sent by Assistant Registrar on its own for information of the applicant. In such circumstances the applicant cannot take any benefit by the letter dated 12- 5-2004 about issuance of the copy of the order to him. In such view of the matter the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court referred to hereinabove shall apply and I have no hesitation to hold that appellant/worker issued the notice after one month and three days of dismissal of his appeal, whereas under section 46, IRO, 2002 the grievance notice was to be issued within 30 days, hence if even the period spent by the appellant before wrong forum is excluded then too he issued the grievance notice after expiry of the period of 30 days. At this juncture it is to observe that the appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay explaining the circumstances due to which he issued the grievance notice on 29-5-2004 after dismissal of his appeal on 26-4-2004. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that limitation is not to be condoned without application 1999 SCM R 2353 and 1986 SCM R 1624.
12. ' Having in view the above facts and circumstances I have no other alternative but to hold that the grievance application filed by the appellant/applicant on the basis of grievance notice issued after the prescribed period of one month was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court and the said order being unexceptional needs no interference .
13. ' Appeal, thus, having no merits is dismissed.