1. By this order, I propose to dispose of this petition filed by the petitioner dated 16-11-2015, stating therein that the respondent's company is trans-provincial as well as international business in and out the country. The petitioner was appointed as Officer Stores in Grade M-4 in Engineering Service Department with effect from 10-032016. The petitioner states he was honest working specially in the stores was a great hurdle in the way of some ill will minded persons and they were in their efforts to remove away the petitioner from their way and they subjected the petitioner to physical and mental torture and threatened him if he did not quit the job. The petitioner further states that due to not acceding to their demand, they forcibly got his signature on a typed resignation letter.
2. On the next day, the petitioner sent grievance notice dated 29-05-2014 to the Chief Executive Officer at Karachi through TCS and also reported the matter to P.S. Bin Qasim vide application dated 29-05-2014. The petitioner awaited for the decision on the grievance notice, but finding no reply from the respondent, the petitioner filed Constitution Petition on 12-08-2014 against the respondent but the same was dismissed on 20-03-2015 with the permission to file remedy.
3. Afterwards, the petitioner filed fresh C.P on 28-05-2015 which was dismissed on 01-09-2015. The petitioner further states that he submitted copy of the order dated 01-00-2015 of Hon'ble High Court alongwith an application dated 01-10-2010 for decision on Grievance Notice dated 29-05-2014-but the respondent vide letter dated 15-10-2015 replied the petitioner and denied to have any such grievance notice on record and the petitioner had submitted resignation with free will and same was accepted on the very day. The petitioner further says that as per order dated 01-09-2015 of Hon'ble High Court, the factual controversies are involved in the instant case therefore, the petitioner filed this petitioner before this Commission.
4. The petitioner also filed application for condonation of delay, praying therein that this Commission may kindly be, condoned the delay of filing this petition in the light of facts and grounds mentioned in the main petition. The petitioner has vigorously and vigilantly persuaded the case before Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Karachi right from his grievance against the respondent but finally the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the case of the petitioner involves factual controversies which cannot be enquired under constitutional jurisdiction. After order dated 01-09-2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi this petition is filed.
5. Counsel for applicant submitted authority in support of his version.
6. 1989 PLC(C.S. ) 467 Rr. 4 & 5--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5--Time-barred appeal--Condonation of delay in filing appeal, when to be granted--Where appellant had been prosecuting his case, before wrong forum in good faith, under the impression that such forum has jurisdiction to redress his grievance, he has a good case for condonation of delay--Question of limitation, however, would be wholly irrelevant where basis of impugned order of dismissal viz. conviction, was set aside by High Court-- Appellant would be entitled to be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits.
7. On the other hand, the respondent filed legal objections and reply statement and objections on application for condonation of delay on 26-03-2016, stating in the application of condonation of delay that present Grievance Petition admittedly is barred by limitation. Resignation dated May 28.
8. 2014 has been accepted vide Letter dated May 28, 2014 which was received and acknowledged by the petitioner. The present Grievance petition has been filed beyond the mandatory prescribed period U/S 33 of IRA, 2012. The respondent states that the present Petition admittedly being barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed. There is no law which requires awaiting reply of the employer on grievance notice without prejudice to the Legal Objections. Even pursuing remedy before a forum which presumed to be wrong, is no ground for condonation. Each day's delay has to be explained.. Once time' beings to run, it runs consciously until entire prescribed period is run out.
9. After the prescribed period of limitation has lapsed, the door of justice is closed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance can be of avail. High Court whilst dismissing the grievance petition neither condoned the delay nor directed to file the grievance petition. It was false alleged by the petitioner.
10. The respondent contends that present Grievance Petition is barred by limitation. Registration dated May 28, 2014 had been accepted vide Letter dated May 28, 2014 which was received and acknowledged by the petitioner. The resignation has been acted upon. The Grievance Petition has been filed beyond the mandatory prescribed period u/S. 33 of IRA, 2012. There is no law which requires to await reply of the employer OD grievance notice without prejudice to the Legal Objection.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends that High Court whilst dismissing the grievance petition neither condoned the delay nor directed to file the grievance petition. It was false alleged by the petitioner that application is pending with the respondent.
12. The respondent counsel relies on the authorities given as under: PLD 2001 Supreme Court 228: Expression "prosecuted in good faith--Connotation and scope--Mistaken advice of counsel-- Prosecution of appeal in the wrong forum--Benefit of S. 14, Limitation Act, 1908--Validity-Mistaken advice of the counsel was not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay---Institution of legal proceedings before a wrong forum without due diligence could not be treated as prosecution of remedy "in good faith" with due diligence-- Provisions of S. 14, Limitation Act, 1908, permit exclusive of time only for proceedings," prosecuted in good faith"--In order to seek exclusion of time spent in legal proceedings, it must be proved that party had acted in good faith while prosecuting his case in the wrong Court.
13. 2010 PLC 104 (Sindh High Court): Since the grievance notice is barred by time, the grievance petition must also be treated as barred by time. It is settled law that where the matter is barred by time the count cannot go into merits of the controversy between the parties. If any authority is needed one may refer to Fazal Elahi Siddiqui vs. Pakistan through General Secretary Establishment and 2 others PLD 1990 SC 692, Wali Muhammad Khokhar vs. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCM R 912 and Muhammad Latif vs. Assistant Chief of Air Staff (personal) and others 2005 SCM R 335. The reason is not far to seek.
14. Limitation shuts the door and bars the remedy. Statutes Of limitation are statutes of repose. It is in the interest of society and the community at large that after a certain lapse of time, the citizens and the parties must be allowed ease of relaxation of their vigils. That is why the Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 made provisions of Section 5 of the Act of ' 2008. In this application of condonation of delay no ground whatsoever has been made for condoning the delay. Mere statement that he was kept on promises is not sufficient to condone delay.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent also relies on the authorities in support of his version:
(i) PLD 1991 SC 957
(ii) 1998 SCM R 2296
(iii) 2003 SCM R 1471 at 1475 The learned counsel relies on the authorities that each day's delay has to be explained, as held in:
(i) 2004 PLC 155 (Sindh High Court)
(ii) 2002 SCM R 1903 He also relies on the authorities that once time begins to run, it runs continuously until entire prescribed period is run out:
(i) PLD 2001 SC 142 at 148
(ii) 1993 PLC 106 (DB-SHC)
16. He further relies on the authorities that case filed beyond the period of limitation is rightly dismissed by the Court:
(i) 2012 TD (Labour) 293 (Supreme Court)
(ii) 2007 TD (labour) 27 (Supreme Court)
17. I have considered the entire material available 'on record, heard learned counsel of both the parties and have also perused the written synopsis given by the counsel for respondent.
18. In view of the above discussion and reasons and in the light of arguments of the learned counsel of the parties, I have found that the instant petition filed by the applicant is time-barred, hence, the application for condonation of Delay in hand stands dismissed. Consequently, the main petition is dismissed as well.
19. Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this 10th January, 2017.