' The appellant was employed as Rice Cashier at the Quaid-e-Azam Road Branch of Habib. Bank Ltd., Jacobabad, in the year 1975. His original appointment was for a period of 6 months but is said to have continued much longer. Thereafter, he was employed intermittently with breaks in his service, either as Rice Cashier or Wheat Cashier upto 1979. His last appointment was for a period of one month which expired on 29th October, 1979, and specific termination orders to this effect were issued to him. The appellant challenged the orders of termination of his services by way of a grievance petition, filed on 22nd May, 1980. The learned VIIth Labour Court, before which the said grievance petition was filed, has dismissed it on the ground that it is not maintainable, having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 25- A, I. R.
0. The said section requires that a workman desiring to file a grievance petition must bring his grievance to the notice of his employer within 3 months of the date on which the grievance accrues. Thereafter, if the employer makes a reply to the grievance notice, he must prefer his grievance petition within 2 months of the date of reply, or if no reply is given to the grievance notice by the employer, the grievance petition has to be filed within 2 1/2 months of the date of the service of the grievance notice on the employer. In the instant case, the grievance petition has been filed almost 7 months after the date of the final termination of the services of the appellant. As such, it is clearly time-barred, as held by the learned Labour Court.
2. It was, however, argued by Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch, the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance of the appellant in fact was that his services were not terminated when he was finally appointed for a period of one month. The very fact that the appellant was given fresh appointment for a period of one month and he accepted the said appointment clearly indicates, on the one hand, that previous services of the appellant stood terminated, and on the other hand, that the appellant had acquiesced in such termination and the fresh appointment orders.
3. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had filed a departmental appeal to the authorities of the respondent-Bank. And consequently, the delay in the filing of the grievance petition should be condoned. There is, however, no evidence on record to establish that such an appeal was in fact preferred by the appellant to his departmental authorities. The Bank authorities have strongly denied having received any such appeal from the appellant. Neither any acknowledgment or postal receipt nor any other tangible evidence has been adduced by the appellant to establish that in fact he had submitted a departmental appeal to the Bank authorities.
As such, no ground for condonation of delay in the filing of the grievance petition has been made out.
4. For the reasons discussed above, I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine. Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch has submitted that although the appellant has not been able to lead evidence to establish that be had filed a depart mental appeal; in fact, he had really done so. He further submitted that the appellant has again approached the Bank authorities with a fresh appeal. It will be for the Bank authorities to consider the merits of that appeal.