The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.03.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. X, Sahiwal whereby a grievance petition made by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant who was inducted in WAPDA services in the year 1974 and was serving as Line Foreman-I at Chichawatni District Sahiwal, served with a show cause notice on 17.10.1998 on the following allegations:--
(i) "L.T pole No. 1 was damaged due to collusions of tractor trolley with the said pole two months ago and the petitioner failed to make report to the S.D.O and supply of electricity to the consu mers feeding from the damaged pole remained disconnected causing a substantial loss of revenue.
(ii) The meter installed in the name of one Mr. Mahood Chak No. 115/7-CR was disconnected by S.D.O.
Chichawatni on 24.10.1997 due to the theft of electricity which was reinstalled by the petitioner next day of its disconnection after accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2800/- from the consumer".
The appellant submitted the reply thereof, he was personally heard but without holding regular inquiry he was retired compulsorily vide order dated 16.04.1999. The appellant preferred departm ental appeal which remains un- responded. He preferred an appeal on 10.07.2009 against the penalty of the compulsorily retirement imposed upon him before Federal Service. Tribunal which abated on 10.01.201 1. Thereafter , the appellant after serving grievance notice on the respondent-establishment made the grievance petition.
3. The grievance petition was contested by the respondents and it was alleged that the penalty of compulsorily retirement was imposed upon the appellant after observing all the codel formalities and hearing the appellant vide order dated 16.04.1999. The grievance petition was made on 07.02.201 1 after lapse of 11 years of passing of the impugned order which was hopelessly time barred.
4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed the grievance petition vide judgment dated 18.03.2017, hence the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had served the respondent-establishment for more than 25 years honestly and diligently . He was proceeded against on the basis of time barred show cause notice. He was condemned unheard. Before imposing the major penalty of compulsorily no regular inquiry was conducted, therefore the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in service but the learned trial Court has dismissed the grievance petition erroneously holding that it was barred by limitation.
6. On the other hand learned law officer has contended that the impugned order was passed on 16.04.1999, thereafter the appellant received all the pensionary benefits. He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 11.10.1999, the appellant preferred an appeal before the F.S.T on 10.07.2009 which was hopelessly time barred, however , the said appeal was dismissed as abated on 10.01.201 1, the grievance petition made by the appellant was time barred and same has rightly been dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record minutely .
8. The charge against the appellant was "L.T pole No. 1 was damaged due to collusions of tractor trolley with the said pole two months ago and the petiti oner failed to make report to the S.D.O and supply of electricity to the consumers feeding from the damaged pole remained disconnected causing a substantial loss of revenue. The meter installed in the name of one Mr. Mahood Chak No. 115/7-CR was disconne cted by S.D.O. Chichawatni on 24.10.1997 due to the theft of electricity which was reinstalled by the petitioner next day of its disconnection after accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2800/- from the consumer . The department issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 17.10.1998, received replied thereof, heard the appellant and there after imposed major penalty of compulsorily retirement vide order dated 16.04.1999. According to the appellant the appeal remained un- responded but the respondents have placed on record a copy of order dated 11.10.1999 (Ex.R. 10) according to which the departmental appeal was dism issed. Admittedly , in the meanwhile the appellant has received, all the pensionary benefits. The appellant appearing as Pw-1 has admitted that he received Rs. 531184/- from the department after filing the departmental appeal then he challenged the legality of the order dated 16.04.1999 before F.S.T Lahore Bench Lahore through appeal No. 64(L) CS/2009 on 10.07.2009 which was heard on 01.11.2010 and was decided on 10.01 .2011 and the appeal was disposed of being abated. Thereafter , the appellant made the grievance petition before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. X, Sahiwal on 07.02.201 1. The appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was hopelessly time barred and an application for condonation of delay (Ex.P .14) was also made before F.S.T. However , while appearing as Pw-1 this fact has been denied by the appellant that he made a petition for condonation of delay . The appeal before learned Federal Service Tribunal was hopelessly time barred and as such the grievance petition was also hopelessly barred by limitation.
9. The question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance and would 6 have substantial bearing on merits of the case. The law of limitation is required to be followed strictly an this respect reliance can be placed on PLD 1976 SC 258, 1978 SCMR 367, PLD 1958 SC 104, PLD 1956 FC 72, PLD 1964 SC 97, PLD 1949 PC 45, PLD 1969 Lah. 1039 , PLD 1973 SC 236, PLD 1975 SC 331, 1989 SCMR 467, 1949 SCMR 271, 1988 SCMR 1354, 1987 SCMR 1606 , 1989 SCMR 1149, 1981 SCMR 244, 1984 SCMR 177, 1956 AC 736, PLD 1959 SC 276, 1977 PLC (C.S.T) 165 and PLD 1990 SC 692 .
10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment is in accordance with law, the same is hereby maintained. The appeal is without merits, the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record-room after due completion. The trial Court's record be sent back immediately .