DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 4-6-1984, passed by the Labour Court NO. VII, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that when the appellant was working as Station Master, Badah, his two years increments were stopped, vide Notice, dated 29-3-1980 and that after expiry of the said period of two years, his increments should have been released with effect from 1-12-1982, but, it was not done. However, aggrieved by the order, dated 29-3-1980, the appellant submitted a departmental appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur, on 3-11-1982, and as he did not receive any reply thereto, therefore, he served a grievance notice upon the respondents on 20-10-1983, and subsequently the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 12-12-1983.
3. The respondent resisted the petition and submitted that the petition was hopelessly time-barred and that as the appellant did not come within the category of a 'workman' being a Station Master and was performing supervisory duties, therefore, he could not maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned Labour Court , instead of going into the merits of the case, had dismissed the petition, mainly on the point of limitation by holding the same as hopelessly time-barred, hence, this appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellant and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The main and vital issue to be determined in the present appeal is whether the grievance petition of the appellant was time-barred, or not?
Admittedly, two increments of the appellant were stopped, vide order, dated 29-3-1980, against which, the appellant had submitted a departmental appeal on 27-6-1980, and this was dismissed by the respondent Railways on 17-10-1983; and that the appellant kept himself silent till 20-10-1983, the date on which he served a grievance notice upon the respondent Railways, and subsequently upto 12-12-1983, when he filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had explained this long delay for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court , except the bare word that the order, withholding of his increments was illegal. If, at all the order was illegal; yet, it does not mean that the appellant should sleep for a long and indefinite period and on one fine morning, he should awaken and approach the Labour Court for redressal of the wrongs done to him long before. He was duty bound to explain with cogent and reasonable reasons the day to day delay in filing of his petition, to which, he miserably failed and he should thank himself for it. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
5. For the reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.
M.Y.H./939/Lb.S