' The appellant-Abdul Aziz S/o Nazir Ahmad Ex-Manager Cooperative Farming Society Chak No, 178/EB Tehsil & District Vehari filed grievance petition U/S 33 of PIRA, 2010 mentioning the facts that he was appointed on 05.09.1969 and he subsequently got vacated some piece of land from the illegal encroaches on 13.05.1980; that later on a case vide FIR No, 102/80 U/S. 302/307/458/148/149, PPC was registered for the alleged murder of four persons including one Mushtaq the alleged illegal occupant of said land; that the appellant was tried by a Special Military Court, Multan; that he was convicted to undergo imprisonment for life; that later on a mercy petition the then Martial Law Administrator Zone-A, Punjab remitted the sentence to the extent of 10 years and appellant was released from the jail on 20.09.1988; that later on, after his released from the jail it came into his notice that he was terminated from the service vide order dated 17.06.1982 and he moved an application on 18.02.1989 to the General Manager (CCFU), Khanewal, the respondent but he was not reinstated, however, subsequently he was appointed vide letter dated 17.12.2007 on contract basis as Chak Manager Co-operative Society and that contract, however, subsequently expired after six months; that the appellant filed a petition before the Punjab Service Tribunal against his termination but that was withdrawn on 29.10.2010 to approach a competent Court of law; that subsequently the appellant sent grievance notice and filed the instant grievance petition before the learned trial Court. Prayed that his termination orders dated 14.06.1982, 14.06.2007, 17.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 whereby his applications were turned down be set-aside and he be reinstated in the service. It was further mentioned that as he had attained the age of superannuation, therefore, he be allowed all the benefits as admissible to a retire Chak Manager in the respondent department.
2.This grievance petition was replied by the respondent-department raising preliminary objections being non-maintainable and incompetent. On factual side, the service of the appellant was admitted with the further addition that he was terminated vide order dated 17.06.1982 due to the reasons that he was involved in a murder case and was convicted by a Special Military Court. All the assertions made by the appellant were refuted and objection was raised that this grievance petition was incompetent having been filed barred by limitation.
3.The learned trial Court recorded the statement of the appellant as Pw-1 who submitted his affidavit Ex.P.1 and got exhibited documents Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.28. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4.On' the other hand respondent's counsel Ch. Khalid Mehmood Arain advocate only in his statement got exhibited document Ex.R.1 and closed the evidence.
5.Learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the grievance petition as barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he was performing his duties as Chak Manager when he was involved in a criminal/murder case at the behest of alleged encroacher and was convicted to undergo imprisonment for life by a Special Military Court vide judgment dated 05.01.1984; that after undergoing the imprisonment he was released on 29.09.1988; that his service was terminated vide order dated 17.06.1982 and he moved departmental appeal on 18.02.1989 which allegedly was dismissed on 06.02.2006; that he sent grievance notice (Ex.P.2) on 27.11.2010 which was replied on 31.03.2011 (Ex.P.3) and subsequently he filed grievance petition on 05.04.2011, hence it was filed within time; that the appellant was. Reappointed on 14.06.2007 vide order Ex.P.28; that the learned trial Court on the basis that firstly the grievance petition was filed beyond the period of limitation and secondly as the appellant was convicted did not find favor and dismissed the grievance petition; that Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.13 showing that alleged competent authority/General Manager admitted that the service record of the appellant was excellent and it was requested that the request of the appellant be considered for reinstatement in service. Learned counsel for the appellant in the light of above arguments prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is without lawful justification, it be set-aside and the grievance petition filed by the appellant be allowed while reinstating him in service with back benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents while controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant referred 1984 SCM R 788 title Agha Aqeed Nasir vs. Inspector General Police, Quetta argued that the principle evolved by the honorable Supreme of Pakistan in respect of the conviction passed by a Military Court that even in case of Pardon the effect of conviction shall remain intact and on that score a person cannot be reinstated in service, however, that pardon can be considered for future appointment of a person in service. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant was released from the jail on 29.09.1988 and for the first he filed application before irrelevant authority on 12.02.1989 and later on before a competent authority on 28.03.1989; that basic principle is that if the first departmental appeal is time barred all the subsequent matters are to be taken as such; that the appeal was decided on 17.03.2010 and thereafter the appellant went before the Service Tribunal and that application was withdrawn on 29.10.2010; that the appellant has reached the age of superannuation on 04.06.2010; that he sent grievance notice on 27.11.2010 which was hopelessly time barred; that respondent department is a Cooperative Society constituted under the Cooperative Act, 1925 and as the appellant was detained in jail, he did not bother even to submit any application before the department, therefore, it was waited for two years and termination order was passed; that the appellant later on again joined his service on contract basis in the year 2007, therefore, he cannot claim the reinstatement of the earlier service; that learned trial Court rightly held that grievance petition was time barred.
Prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court minutely.
9. There is no denial to the fact as the appellant himself in his grievance petition and his statement/affidavit Ex.P.1 clearly admitted that he was involved in a murder case for the alleged commission of the murder of four persons and case vide FIR No, 102/80 U/S. 302/307/458/148/149, PPC registered against him and he was convicted by a Special Military Court to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 05.01.1984; that he served his sentence, however, his sentence was remitted by the then Zonal Martial Law Administrator, Punjab and he was released from the jail on 29.09.1988. There is no denial to the fact that the appellant was terminated from the service vide order dated 17.06.1982 Ex.P.7 due to his continuous absent from the duty due to confinement in jail; that admittedly according to the appellant himself he for the first time filed application/departmental appeal before the respondent-department on 18.02.1989 but as it was filed before an incompetent authority, therefore, subsequently he moved departmental appeal on 28.03.1989 before authority competent to decide the same; that if the statement of the appellant is seen he throughout in his statement as well as in his grievance petition did not agitate that he was not in knowledge of termination order dated 17.06.1982 while detained in jail, otherwise there was no impediment on his way to move before the respondent-authority against his termination even while having been confined in jail. Admittedly according to his own version he was released from jail on 29.09.1988 and then he moved departmental appeal which was decided on 17.03.2010; that the appellant after decision of the departmental appeal did not send the grievance notice to the respondent and filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which according to him was withdrawn by him on 29.10.2010; that unfortunately said order of withdrawal passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 29.10.2010 is not brought on the records by the appellant, however, subsequent to that he moved grievance notice to the respondent and later on file the instant grievance petition on 05.04.2011 before the learned trial Court U/S 33 (1) of PIRA, 2010, it is provided: "33. Redress of individual grievances.--(1) A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his, shop steward or collective bargaining agent within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises".
10. If the above mentioned provision of law applicable on the subject is seen which only is applicable in the case of a worker/ workman. Here in this case, although the appellant claims himself as Chak Manager and although there was a objection raised by the respondent in the written reply to the grievance petition that grievance petition was not competent before the learned trial Court but unfortunately both sides did not bother to bring on record any evidence to solve the question if appellant falls within the definition of worker/workman or otherwise; that the learned trial Court unfortunately did not advert to this aspect of the case, therefore, at this stage when there is no evidence, it is not possible for this Tribunal to decide this question.
11. As far as the question of limitation is concerned if subsection (1) of Section 33 of PIRA, 2010 referred above is seen, a worker is required to send a grievance notice in writing, he himself or through Collective Bargaining Agent within three months of the date on which cause of such grievance arises. Here in this case, the cause of such grievance arose when on 17.06.1982 vide Ex.P.7 the services of the appellant were terminated, however, if the version put forwarded by the appellant is taken into consideration then on his having been released from the jail i.e, on 29.09.1988; that the appellant did not issue any grievance notice to the respondent rather he filed kept on waiting the result of departmental appeal which was dismissed on 17.03.2010; that the appellant even after 17.03.2010 according to himself choose a wrong forum and preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was later on withdrawn on 29.10.2010. Hence, in these circumstance, the subsequent grievance notice issued by the appellant as well as filing of the grievance petition is hopelessly time barred.
12. The learned trial Court discussed the aspect of limitation and rightly found it filed beyond the period of limitation, hence in these circumstances no ground available to the appellant to interfere into the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. This appeal merits dismissal, it is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the records room after its due completion. The trial Court's records be sent back immediately.