1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-The petitioner All Ahmed was a salesman under the 2nd party M.
2. M. Ispahani Ltd. and a criminal case was started against the petitioner for misappropriation of Company's fund. During the pendency of the criminal case he was dismissed from service on 16-1-
66. On 29-1-66 the petitioner challenged the validity of the order of dismissal. Then long after the termination of the criminal case this case has been filed on 8-4-69 for certain amounts as termination benefits. 2nd party while denying the material allegation of the 'petitioner contend, inter alia, that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation.
3. Both the members of the Court hold that the application is barred by limitation. I also agree with them. It is clear from petitioner's case that he was aware of the dismissal order and he challenged the same at the earliest opportunity.
4. He should have submitted grievance petition as provided and should have come before Court within the time specified in. clause (b) of section 25(1) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. But he waited and filed grievance petition on 29-1-69, long years after and files this case on 8-4-69. There is no ground in this case to save limitation. There is no fraudulent suppression of the order of dismissal. Criminal case does not also salve limitation. Hence, ORDERED That the application is barred by limitation.