' FALAK SHER FAROOQA (MEMBER).--- This is a grievance petition under Section 33 of IRA, 2012 whereby the dismissal order dated 24.12.2013 has been challenged. The respondents has filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The same has been replied by the respondent/petitioner by filing written reply.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was employed as OG-III Cash Officer at the Bank of Punjab Muzaffargarh Branch Muzaffargarh from 14.05.2005 to 26.12.2013. In the said Branch of Bank, Audit was conducted and audit ream detected. That an amount of Rs,57,709 was not taken in to the account by the cashier on different dates. The audit team explicitly stated in its report that in 230 cases commission of Rs,6870.00 FED Rs,11,48.00 courier charges, Rs,100.00 of WHT amounting to Rs,508,820/- was recovered from the customers by 05 cash officers but same was pocketed by them and was not credited to the respective GL Heads in the system. The show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 4.10.2013 and the petitioner denied all the charges. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.12.2013. He filed departmental appeal in this regard and the same was also turned down. He served grievance notice on 2.4.2014 but no decision was passed, therefore he filed grievance petition. The respondents have filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For the dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground that the grievance notice is time barred.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that admittedly the petitioner was dismissed from his service vide order dated 24.12.2013; that he served grievance notice on 2.4.2014 which was received by the respondents on 7.4.2014; that as per mandate of Section 33 of IRA, 2012 the grievance notice was to be served against respondent within 90 days of the day of which cause of such grievances arises; that the cause of action has arisen from the date of dismissal of the petitioner whereas the grievance notice has been served allegedly on 2.4.2014 which is beyond limitation, therefore the grievance petition is not maintainable. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon 2006 PLC 617, 2002 PLC (CS) 907 and 1984 PLC 89.
Conversely learned counsel for the respondents has argued that after his dismissal from service, the petitioner filed the departmental appeal on 23.01.2014 which was rejected on 6.3.2014 and then on 2.4.2014 the grievance notice was served on the respondents, therefore the grievance notice is within time. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1995 SCMR 1655.
4. Arguments heard record perused.
5. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.12.2013. He served grievance notice on 2.4.2014 as per his own version which he made in para No,10 of his grievance petition. He has stated in para No,9 of grievance petition that he filed departmental appeal which was also turned down but no date is mentioned in this regard in his grievance petition. Cause of action arose against the respondents, from the date of dismissal of the petitioner, therefore as per mandate of law, petitioner was required to file the grievance notice within 90 days from his dismissal, whereas in this case, the grievance notice was served beyond limitation. In Almas Ahmed Fiaz v. Secretary General of Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development Lahore (2006 SCMR 783) it has been held as under:- "Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Grievance petition---Limitation-Petitioner was employed on work charge basis in year 1988, later on he was employed on ad hoc basis against a permanent post---In year, 1998 the post was again converted into work charge basis--- Constitutional petition as well as Intra-Court Appeal, filed by the petitioner against such conversion, were dismissed by High Court, as he did not file any grievance notice under 5.46(I) of IRO, 2002---After dismissal of Intra Court Appeal, the petitioner gave grievance notice and then filed petition---Labour Court allowed the petition but High Court dismissed the same as grievance notice was time-barred--- Validity---Petitioner had served grievance notice on 7.11.2002, after 3 years and 4-1/2 months---In case cause of action accrued after dismissal of his Intra-Court Appeal by High Court even then he had not served grievance notice to the petitioner in terms of S.46(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, within specified period of one month Question of limitation under 5.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, had to be rigidly construed on the well-known maxim that no party was allowed to circumvent the provisions of statute of limitation- --Party approaching Court of competent jurisdiction for redress of grievance beyond specified period of limitation was bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because valuable right had accrued to the other side---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court in exercise of labour appellate jurisdiction---Leave to appeal was refused."
' In Zar Khan v. Senior Vice President MCB Regional Office Abbottabad 1984 PLC 89 it has been held as under:- "S.25-A---Grievance notice---No specific form of grievance notice by employee prescribed--- Notice to be served upon employer and not on any higher or appellate authority---Mercy petition, appeal or a petition to Labour Court cannot be treated as grievance notice---Grievance notice; held, a document independent of Mercy petition or appeal to appellate authority-- Notice to be served upon appointing authority and not to authority higher than that."
6. The facts of the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner titled Naseem Ahmed v.
Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Lahore (1995 SCMR 1655) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the said judgment, the appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 24.1.1985 he filed departmental appeal against his dismissal which was rejected on 29.9.1985 but this order was communicated to the appellant on 16.10.1985. Appellant challenged his dismissal order in W.P.No,955 of 1986 filed before Lahore High Court on 19.02.1986. It was an admitted position in the case that by virtue of decision of Division Bench of Lahore High Court dated 10.04.1985 the employees of National Bank were held disentitled to approach the Labour Court under Section 25- A, IRO in respect of their individual grievance. Similar view was expressed in many other cases decided by the Lahore High Court and the High Court of Sindh, the above view taken by the Lahore High Court and High Court of Sindh was set-aside by August Supreme Court in a large number of civil appeal which were disposed of vide judgment dated 15.4.1987 as a result of decision of August Supreme Court, the employees of National Bank of Pakistan were held entitled to approach the Labour court under Section 25-A of the Ordinance, therefore the appellant of the case filed grievance petition. He also filed an application for condonation of delay which delay was condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas in this present case there is no such situation and in fact the grievance notice has been served against respondents beyond 90 days without explaining the delay. Moreover no such application has been filed along with the grievance petition for condonation of delay.
7. In view of above discussion, grievance notice has been served beyond limitation, therefore grievance petition is not maintainable, the same is dismissed. Resultantly, I accept application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. And dismiss the grievance petition. File be consigned to record room.