1. ' This appeal arises from the decision dated 10-12-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No,1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his regularization as Lineman II was dismissed as time-barred.
2. ' The appellant was in the beginning appointed as Lineman on work-charge basis. In 1976 his colleagues were regularised as Linemen II but the appellant as Assistant Lineman. For the redress this grievance he had given the grievance petition on 9-9-1982. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had been as urged in his petition making representations which have been as yet reply to so his grievance petition is not time-barred.
3. ' He has made reference to letter R.6 under which an application of the appellant was forwarded to the Project Director Scarp Electrification (N). This letter is dated 30-10-1978. The appellant was regularised as Assistant Lineman on 5-8-1976 but he made representation which was forwarded under R. 6 on 30-10-1978 after more than two years, so time for bringing grievance petition had before the representation. The representation therefore did not extend the time. Learned counsel says that this was the first representation. If this so then there was no evidence about any earlier representation which may have been made before the expiry of the period prescribed by section 25-A for making grievance petition. Grievance notice was given on 16-8-1980 and the grievance petition was made on 9-9-1980. So grievance notice was time-barred and the grievance petition was also from the date of the grievance notice time-barred. If reply to the grievance is received grievance petition can be made within 2 (1/2) months of the service of the grievance notice.
4. Grievance petition, therefore, could be made upto 1st of September, 1980 but it was made on 9-9- 1980. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the petition as time-barred.