SALEEM JAN, MEMBER.---- The appellant has filed the present appeal under section 58 of the IRA, 2012. By way of this order we going to dispose of the appeal filed against the order of learned Single Member Karachi Bench dated 04-07-2018 whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant filed petition bearing No.4B(04)/2017-K. under section 33 of the IRA, 2012 against stating therein that he was appointed as Assistant in the Bank on 03-12-2008. All of sudden he received suspension order dated 04-04-2012. On 24-05-2012, the respondent No.3 issued a charge- sheet and show-cause notice for illegal omission/commission and irregularities committed by the appellant, which was replied by him. However , he received another show-cause notice dated 2011-2012,, which was also replied by the appellant but subsequently the appellant received letter of dismissed dated 26-02-2013, which was challenged by him through grievance petition. Prior to filing the grievance petition, the petitioner filed C.P. No.D-307/2015 and on 15-01-2015 the same was disposed of vide order dated 30-11-2016 at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner that he will avail the appropriate remedy by filing the grievance petition before NIRC. The respondents turned up before the learned Single Member and filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the petition. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Member accepted the application under Order VII, Rule, 11, C.P.C. and dismissed the petition of the appellant. Being aggrieved by this order , the appellant filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended in his arguments that without recording evidence, learned Single Member vide impugned order accepted the application of the respondents under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. He further contended in his arguments that evidence was necessary in the main grievance petition, which was not recorded by the learned Single Member , so in these circumstances learned Single Member has committed illegality and irregularity while passing the impugned order , therefore, the appeal of the appellant be accepted and grievance petition be remanded to the learned Single Member for recording pro and contra evidence and deciding the matter on its merits.
4. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondent contended in his arguments that the grievance petition was hopelessly time-barred for more than three years. No grievance notice was served by the appellant. Leaned Single Member has committed no illegality or irregularly while accepting the application of respondents filed under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C., so in these circumstances, the appeal be dismissed and impugned order be maintained.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties.
6. The perusal of record reveals that the appellant was dismissed from service on 26-02-2013 while the grievance petition was filed on 30-12-2016. Under the law of limitation, the appellant was bound to explain each and every day of delay whereas in the instant petition there is delay of more than three years and the appellant has failed to justify the delay of each and every day for filing the grievance petition, so in these circumstances we are of the affirmed opinion that the grievance petition is hopelessly time-barred for more than three years. Moreover the appellant has not served grievance notice upon the respondents, which is pre-requisite condition for filing the grievance petition, therefore, we hold that by accepting the application of respondents under Order VII, Rule, C.P.C. and by dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, the learned Single Member has committed no illegality or irregularity . Reliance in this regard is placed on 2000 PLC (C.S.) 907 (Khushal Khan v. MCB and others ) whereas August Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "We have looked into available record as well as the impugned judgment consciou sly. It is an unconverted fact that against the dismissal order dated 22nd May, 1996 no grievance notice as required under section 25-A, I.R.O. was served by the petitioner upon the employer . There is no gain in saying that the Appellate Authority is always considered to be distinct and different from the original authority competent to make appointment. According to the contents of appointment letter dated 4th May, 1983 petitioner was appointed as Cashier by Regional Manager of MCB being the appointing Authority whereas appeal was addressed in the name of the President of the Bank, who admittedly was not his Appointing Authority . In addition to it, according to the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (Staf f) Service Rules, 1981, petitioner being a Cashier was Category-II official, therefore, President of MCB could not be his Appointing Authority meaning thereby that for the purposes of section 25-A, I.R.O., Regional Manager would be the employer of the petitioner . As such we are inclined to associate ourselves with the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner ."
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is hereby maintained and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record.