' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J-Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the Respondent, who was a Cashier in the Petitioner Bank, had applied under a Golden Handshake Scheme (GHS) on 12.4.2003, which was accepted on 26.4.2003 as in the meantime it was extended to cashiers on 21.4.2003. However, the Petitioner had moved an application on 18.4.2003 disowning his earlier application dated 12.4.2003. He thereafter moved a departmental appeal on 16.5.2003 and subsequently gave a grievance notice on 14.7.2003 and finally approached the learned Labour Court for his remedy. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 30.9.2005 ordered reinstatement of the Respondent. The Appeal filed before the learned Sindh High Court against such order failed vide impugned judgment.
2. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned ASC's first contention, is that the application before the learned Labour Court was time-barred as it was filed on 18.8.2003 whereas the representation before the Petitioner Bank was filed on 16.5.2003 and thereafter grievance notice on 14.7.2003. According to Mr. Bajwa the representation filed earlier in time is to he treated as a grievance notice under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which provides a period of two months counted from 31.5.2003 (i.e, upon expiry of 15 days from the first grievance notice dated 16.5.2003) within which the aggrieved workman is to approach the learned Labour Court. According to learned ASC the cause of action cannot be extended by the Respondent by filing another grievance notice i.e, on 14.7.2003. Learned ASC has therefore submitted that the learned High Court has erred while deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the Respondent. For this proposition he has relied upon Pakistan Machine Tool Factory v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1992 PLC 650).
3. As to the merits of the case, learned ASC's contention is that again the learned High Court's observation that, since on the date of the application opting for the GHS i.e, 12.4.2003 the same was not applicable to Respondent hence it could, not be applied to the Respondent is again fallacious.
According to learned ASC whether or not the scheme is applicable, once the Respondent had opted for the same the Petitioner could always accept it which has been done in his case.
4. On the other hand Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned ASC appearing for the Respondent has fully supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have heard learned ASCs. Insofar as limitation is concerned, it would be seen that per Section 46(1) of the IRO a worker may bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within one month of the date on which the cause of such grievance, arose whereafter under sub-section (2) the employer has 15 days within which the same is to be responded to and under sub-section (3) if there is no such response than the worker has the right to take his grievance to the Labour Court.
However. This is to be done within a period of two months from the date of the Employer's response or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period specified in sub-section (2). In the present case, a refusal of the departmental appeal dated 16.5.2003 makes it abundantly clear that the Respondent has protested against his retirement under the GHS conveyed to him on 26.4.2003. He has taken a number of grounds in such Appeal, alia, that he had never given his option for the GHS and had immediately protested vide letter dated 18.4.2003 to which no response had been received. So also that he had not accepted any amount under the GHS and hence requested that his retirement order be withdrawn. In our opinion, this is indeed a grievance against the order passed by the Petitioner within the meaning of Section 46 of the IRO, 2002 as it is regarding his service which is a right guaranteed to him under the law contemplated therein in the sense that he could only be removed from the same in accordance with the law which would he the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 etc. In this view of the matter, the period of two months' is to be counted from the date of expiry of 15 days from 16.5.2003 to 31.5.2003 and hence the petition tiled before the, learned Labour Court on 18.8.2003 is out of time. In our opinion, the Respondent cannot postpone the cause of action by filing successive grievance notices.
6. As we have reached the conclusion that the matter is hit by limitation therefore, we do not feel it necessary to discuss the merits of the case. Consequently we would, after converting this Petition into an Appeal, allow the same and set aside the impugned judgment. Leave Petition Converted into Appeal and .