ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- The appellant, a Meter Reader in the respondent establishment was proceeded against departmentally and was issued a show-cause notice on 6- 3-2002 (Exh.P-6) requiring him to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him on the ground that he, while calculating advance units, kept the units pending for ulterior motives to give undue benefits to the consumer. The appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice which was found unsatisfactory and the Authority without conducting any proper enquiry imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 8-5-2002. He filed a grievance notice which was followed by the grievance petition.
2. The appellant appears to have remained in deep slumber for over four years and taking shelter under Mubeen us Salam's case (PLD 2006 SC 206) attempted to seek relief from the Labour Court.
3. The learned Labour Court after recording of evidence and hearing arguments held that Mubeen us Salam's case was not applicable to him. Even if it be assumed that he can avail remedy in terms of the said case even then it was barred by 14 days and for this delay he has not rendered any plausible explanation for each day. Consequently the grievance petition was dismissed on 13-10- 2009 as time barred.
4. The appellant has challenged this order on the ground that the court has proceeded arbitrarily against him and has failed to allow him proper chance of explaining the alleged delay as such the impugned order stands vitiated.
5. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents has taken the plea that after his compulsory retirement, the appellant had filed an appeal and remained silent. He should have filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was appropriate forum for him in the year 2002 under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act.
6. Arguments heard and record perused:
7. The appellant had indeed choice not to wait for communication of decision of his departmental appeal and file appeal after expiry of 90 days of period specified in section 4(1) proviso (a) of the Services Tribunals Act, 1973. Civil servant as a reasonable person would have made enquiry at the time of expiry of 90 days about the fate of his appeal. Period of limitation, therefore, could be treated to have started on the date from the communication of the order or on the expiry of 90 days. A reference to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 would be helpful to resolve this issue. Section 4 ibid shortly reads:- "4. Appeal to Tribunals.--- (1) Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal: ' Provided that:--
(a) where an appeal, review or a representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or any rules against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred; (b)
8. It is a special law and clearly requires that after preferring an appeal, review or revision, the appellant must approach the Service Tribunal after waiting for a period of 90 days. It means that the law recognizes the right to file an appeal, review or revision etc. Where-ever it is legally available but the appellant must come to Service Tribunal after waiting for 90 days of the filing of appeal because the words used by law are "that the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authorities and a period of 90 days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred. This shows that the appeal before the FST should have been filed within 120 days after the day when the departmental appeal was filed. The appeal before FST was thus hopelessly time barred.
9. After the rejection of his departmental appeal all his endeavors instead of approaching the FST were a sheer wastage of time. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court .(PLD 1990 SC 692) was pleased to rule:--- "Service Tribunal should press into service question of limitation strictly---Fact that the Service Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without touching upon the merits of the case, would not render the order under appeal legally infirm, as to warrant interference by Supreme Court.
' Civil servant has to approach the Service Tribunal against a final order by which he is aggrieved within 120 days i,e, 90 days waiting period for receiving a decision on appeal, review or representation plus 30 days limitation period of the appeal before the Service Tribunal."
10. In this view of the matter, the appellant does not appear to have come to the court with clean hands. The matter which at the maximum after the rejection of the departmental appeal should have reached the appropriate forum within 120 days had taken almost four years.
11. It is also a settled law that where the matter is barred by time the court cannot go into the merits of the controversy between the parties. Reference in this behalf may be made to Fazal Elahi Siddiqui v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and 2 others (PLD 1990 SC 692)
Wali Muhammad Khokhar v. Government of Sindh and others (2001 SCM R 912) and in 2011 SCM R 676 (e) and (g), the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled:--- "It is settled proposition of law that when an appeal of the employee was time barred before the appellant authority then the appeal before the Tribunal was also not competent in view of the various pronouncements of this Court. See Chairman PIA and others v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951) and Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA and others (2007 SCM R 513)."
"It is admitted fact that appeal is obviously time barred and it has been held by this Court in Khan Sahib Sher Muhammad Mir's case (1987 SCM R 92) that when an appeal is required to be dismissed on limitation, its merits .Need not be discussed."
12. The impugned judgment is indeed well reasoned. The learned Labour court has properly appreciated the facts and rightly applied the law.
13. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.