ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.--- This Labour Appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 4-6- 2008 of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan (Camp Court at Saidu Sharif, Swat) whereby Grievance Petition of appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in year, 1997 retrenchment scheme was introduced by the United Bank whereby the services of more than 5000 employees including the appellant were terminated after giving them Golden Hand Shake benefits. Zakariya Khan, the appellant, was not happy with the scheme and filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, (repealed) against the respondents prayed therein his reinstatement in service, which was dismissed by the Labour Court on 14-6-2000. The appellant filed an appeal Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 20-4-2011. The decision of appellate tribunal was assailed in writ petition before High Court which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 29-1-2004 which order was upheld by the august Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 6-2-2007.
3. Subsequently, the appellant filed grievance petition before Labour Court prayed therein his re- appointment on the vacant post, advertised through 'The Daily News'. On 1-4-2007, which was contested by the respondents and after hearing the parties, the Labour Court dismissed the petition, vide judgment dated 4-6-2008, hence, the present appeal.
4. It is pertinent to mention that earlier learned counsel for the respondents raised objection that Tribunal has been created under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010, which has not been extended to Provincially Administered Tribal Area, therefore, the appeal could not be heard and proceeded by the Tribunal. Since Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, was extended to PATA and the forum of appeal under section 48 of the Ordinance, ibid, was the High Court and not the Labour Appellate Tribunal, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal instead of returning the same to the appellant, transmitted it Additional Registrar (Judicial) Peshawar High Court, for placing before the competent Bench, vide judgment dated 10-6-2011.
5. Arguments heard and file perused.
6. It is evident from the record that appellant has been retrenched in the year, 1997 under section 13 of the Standing Order Ordinance. The appellant has filed the grievance petition in year, 2007, under section 14 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing A Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, which imposes duty upon employer to give preference to retrenched employee as compared to others in case of reemployment in same category, however, this privilege would lost only for one year. If this test is applied to the instant case neither any post has been vacated nor filled within one year of retrenchment of the appellant. The grievance petition is silent about the cause of action accrued to the appellant and no plausible explanation put forward by him to condone the delay and, as such, the petition was time-barred.
7. The plea of the appellant regarding his re-employment under Sacked Employee (Reinstatement)
Act, 2010, is misplaced, as the appellant was not sacked employee and has never taken this plea in his grievance petition. The case of appellant is not covered under section 2(d) of the Act, and his employer, being private Bank, does not come within the ambit of Employer as defined under the referred provisions, which is given as follows, for convenience:--- Section 2(d). "Employer" means the Federal Government or any Ministry or Davison or department of the Federal Government or a corporation or organization or autonomous or semi autonomous body established by or under a Federal law or owned or controlled by the Federal Government.
Similarly, the provision of section 17 of the Act, ibid, is reproduced as under for guidance:--- "Section 17. Cases pending in Courts.--- Unless otherwise provided in this Act any type of case or suit or petition filed by a sacked employee pertaining to his service, pending with any Tribunal or Court including the Supreme Court or a High Court, if any, to the extent of provisions of this Act, shall stand disposed of from the Tribunal or the Court including the Supreme Court or a High Court, as the case may be, in accordance with provisions of this Act."
8. The grievance notice and petition as well as the instant appeal filed in the year, 2008, does not contain the plea taken now by the appellant to take benefit of the Act, nor it is applicable to case of appellant for the simple reason that remedy under the Act, was not available to the appellant when cause of action arose to the appellant.
9. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the grievance petition for his re-employment on any vacant post as advertised through daily "The News" dated 1st April, 2007, whereas the appellant has crossed the age of superannuation and, as such, instant appeal and grievance petition have become in fructuous and would not serve any useful purpose if allowed to proceed and on this score alone the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The presiding officer, Labour Court, applied independent mind with conscious and decided the matter with sound reasons, warrants no interference.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has no merit, hence, the decision of learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is upheld and the appeal in hand is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.