' The three appeals captioned above arise from the decisions, dated 25th June, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their re-instatement in service were dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction and that the grievance notices were time-barred. On merits the appellants, according to the learned lower Court; are entitled to be re-instated.
2. On the point or limitation the appellants have produced by way of additional evidence the certificate issued by the N. I. R. C. To the effect that a petition was brought on 10th April, 1981 and the same was dismissed on 28th December, 1981. According to this certificate, petition before the N. I. R.
C. Was presented within three months, so till then the period for giving grievance notice had not expired. As the appellant fought the case under a bona fide belief that N. I. R. C. Had jurisdiction, the period spent in that Court is to be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The grievance notices were, therefore, within time and the grievance petitions competent.
3. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the finding of the learned lower Court is correct. Notification brought on the record is of 8th March, 1983. In this notification the previous notifications of 1980 and 1982 are also mentioned but no mention is made of the notification that may have been issued in 1981. In the Appeal No, 10 of 1983 titled as Muhammad Shafi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, decided on 19th February, 1984. All the relevant notifications from March, 1981 upto date were produced and I held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts was barred. No contrary view can be taken in this case. In PLD 1982 SC 113 it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Courts is barred and only the specified authority i. e. Magistrate 1st Class has jurisdiction. The finding of the learned lower Court on the point is thus upheld.
4. The finding of the learned lower Court on merits too is correct. As no written order of termination was recorded, the provisions of Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were violated.
5. As a result, the appeals fail and are dismissed.