1. DECISION ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH MEMBFR).--- This appeal has A been preferred against the order dated 16- 12-2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, whereby the IA grievance Application bearing No,20 of 2008 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. ' Miss. Nasim Abbasi learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shaukat Ali Chaudhry learned Counsel for the respondents advanced their arguments/synopsis in writing.
3. ' I have gone through the arguments, citations and record and proceedings of the case and have come to the following:-- ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was compulsorily retired from the service of the bank vide letter dated 2nd August, 2006 and it is a matter of fact that the Secretary Central Administrative Action Committee had passed the said order and it is nowhere mention that who is the employer/authority authorized by the employer, but the said letter has contained the words "We find that you have been proved guilty of committed acts of misconduct". Against such retirement order, appellant approached the President of the Bank by way of appeal dated 31-8- 2006 and the said appeal was rejected through letter dated 23-8-2007. The said letter is reproduced as under for ready reference:--- "Please refer to your Review Appeal dated 31-8-2006 against the punishment inflicted upon you vide letter No,CO/HRG/ERW/ AAC/06/11270 dated 2-8-2006 by the Central Administrative Action Committee, Central Office, Karachi. The said appeal was placed before the Human Resource Committee for consideration which after thorough examination of the case has decided to uphold the above referred decision of Central Administrative Action Committee, Central Office, Karachi.
4. ' Sd/-Secretary ' Human Resource Committee Central Office, Karachi."
5. ' The perusal of the above referred letter reveals that the grievance as communicated/raised has been considered by a Central Action Committee and rejected. The above rejection was not made or any reference has been made regarding the incompetency of the said appeal/grievance notice and the same has not been rejected on the ground that it has not been addressed to the proper authority.
6. ' On the other hand when the appellant had filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court and impleaded the Bank, the President and the Secretary Central Administrative Action Committee and in reply the respondents have raised legal Objection No,iii before learned Labour Court, which reads as under:--- "III That the applicant being aggrieved of dismissal from service of the Bank brought his grievance into the notice of bank (though through not a valid Grievance Notice) by addressing an appeal to the President of bank on 31-8-2006. However, he failed to approach the Labour Court within time as provided under subsection (3) of section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Hence the present Grievance Application filed by the applicant is hopelessly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone."
7. ' It has been noticed very seriously that the respondents have not mentioned that who is the competent or the appellate authority to which the appellant has to serve grievance notice, in the written statement or in evidence nor any question has been put to the appellant in this regard, but by mere saying that the appeal as addressed to the President of the Bank was not a valid grievance notice. In absence of anything about the authority appellate or otherwise, the serve of appeal or any letter to the President of the Bank cannot be brushed aside by saying that the same is not a valid grievance notice.
8. ' The establishment of the respondents Bank is a commercial establishment as covered by the definition of "commercial establishment" as given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and in the definition of "employer" in the same Ordinance the person responsible for main employer i,e, Board of Directors of the respondent bank is the. President, therefore, anything sent to the President can be considered as grievance notice and findings of the learned Labour Court is not proper.
9. The second point which has been decided by the learned Labour Court is that the grievance petition is barred by time, as because section 46 of the I.R.O. 2002 (repealed) and section 41 of I.R.A.
10. 2010 provides specific time limitation for service of grievance notice, its reply, waiting for reply and for filing grievance petition before learned Labour Court. The limitation provided for reply and waiting for reply is only 15 days and in case reply received or not received, the appellant was bound to approach the Labour Court after expiry of 15 days or after receiving the reply or whichever is earlier shall go to the Labour Court within 60 days and in this matter appellant had not approached the Labour Court within the stipulated time and waited for reply for more than one year, hence his grievance petition has lightly been held as time-barred.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.