' The decision, dated 20-3-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed as time-barred and on the ground that the appellant, having received the benefits of retirement, was no longer an aggrieved person.
2. The appellant was a semi-skilled fitter. He went on three months sanctioned leave on 20-1-1978.
His application for extension of leave for the period from 30-4-1978 to 31-7-1978 was also sanctioned vide order Exh.P.1. On the allegation that the extended leave was cancelled on the ground that it had been sanctioned by an incompetent authority, he was dismissed from service.
On departmental appeal the punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement vide order Exh.P.7, dated 17-8-1980. Grievance notice was served by the appellant on 25-9-1980. Its reply is dated 11-10-1980 but the grievance petition was lodged on 4-4-1982 with a delay of thirteen months. The appellant applied for condonation of delay on the ground that he had fallen ill and on recovery brought the grievance petition. The learned Court has not accepted the plea. The medical certificates are Exhs.P.10 to P.14. The last certificate Exh.P.14 is of fitness.
3. So far as facts are concerned, there is no evidence that any information of the cancellation of leave was given to the appellant. The disease from which, according to the doctor, the appellant was suffering was gastric and rheumatic pain in the abdomen. The appellant said that he had been going to the doctor. This shows that the appellant was not prevented from moving. None of the certificates suggests that bed rest was recommended by the doctor. The certificates are to the effect that leave recommended was necessary for the restoration of health. This is thus clear that leave was necessary but bed rest was not compulsory. The appellant, therefore, could contact his counsel during his illness. The certificates also show that they were not meant for Court proceedings. This fact further shows that the appellant was not advised not to have recourse to law Courts to fight for his rights. The other thing is that certificate Exh.P.10 only was got proved from the doctor but the remaining certificates were not put to him. The inference is that the appellant was not confident that the doctor would support them. It, therefore, does not stand proved that the appellant was in reality prevented by his illness from lodging the grievance petition within two months of the receipt of reply to his grievance notice. The application for condonation of delay was thus rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court.
4. The rule of estoppel appears to have been rightly applied by the learned lower Court. Exh.R.1 is the application of the appellant. It shows that he spontaneously asked for the payment of retirement benefits. He did not say in Exh.R.1 that under protest he was asking for the benefits, nor said that he was retaining the right to pursue his grievance petition already lodged by him. It is thus clear that after asking for the retirement benefits and after actually receiving them, he ceased to remain an aggrieved person. He has thus been rightly not re-instated by the learned lower Court.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.