' The above-captioned appeal arises from the decision, dated 23rd May, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as time-barred.
2. The appellant was an electrician. He was dismissed on 19th September, 1981 on the allegation of committing misconduct. Before coming to the Labour Court he had gone to the N. I. R. C. His petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 10th January, 1982. Notice Exh. R. 10 with copy of judgment was sent to the appellant by the N. I. R. C. This means that on 10th January, 1982 the appellant was not present. If 10th January, 1982 had been fixed as the date for announcement of the orders, the N. I. R. C. Would not have sent information to him on 10th January, 1982. A Exh. R. 10 was produced by the respondent and not by the appellant. It therefore, cannot be said that the appellant got information by the sat letter. The appellant obtained copy of the order which carries the date of attestation as true copy as 31st January, 1982. According to section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time spent bona fide in a wrong forum is to excluded. The grievance notice dated 7th February, 1982, therefore, was within time from 31st January, 1982. The petition was lodged on 12t April, 1982. It too from the date of grievance notice was within time. The learned lower Court thus wrongly held that petition was time-barred.
3. However, since Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applies. To the respondent, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. Since the 'appellant went to the N. I. R. C. And not to the Labour Court in the beginning, it is evident that even according to him, the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, applies to this case. Even otherwise from the notification produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is evident that right from 1980 upto 31st December, 1983 notifications were issued after every six months. At the time the petition was brought to the learned lower Court, the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was applicable, so the petition could not be brought to the said Court. According to PLD 1982 SC 113 a Magistrate 1st Class has jurisdiction.
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.