DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 20-8-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, 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 the appellant was a permanent workman in the respondent Railway working as Superintendent Trains. That on 19-3-1942 the appellant joined as Probationer Relieving Traffic Signallor in B.B. & C.I. Railway in India where he passed departmental examination and was promoted as Relieving Deputy Station Master and these qualifications were not only equivalent to the P-3 Course of Pakistan Railwavs but also were higher than that. In 1947 the appellant opted to Pakistan and had joined Pakistan Railways in September, 1947. That though the appellant was claiming seniority right from 1947 till 1968-69, but, his requests were not considered.
However, after serving the Railways Department for 32 years, the appellant was retired from service in the year 1982. That during the employment with the Pakistan Railways the appellant did not get the fixation of his seniority, he filed a civil suit against the respondent Railways on 24-3-1971 which was decreed in his favour. However, even after dismissal of the Revision Petition of the respondent Pakistan Railways by the High Court on 23-12-1979, the grievance of the appellant was not redressed therefore, on 5-6-1982, the appellant submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court
3. The respondent Railways resisted the petition and had submitted that the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 was not maintainable on the ground, firstly, that it was hopelessly time-barred, and secondly, that the Labour Court at Karachi had no territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it was the case of the respondent Railways that as the appellant was working as Superintendent Trains and was not a workman, therefore, no right guaranteed or secured to him has been infringed or violated.
Further that, after decision on the Revision Petition by the High Court, the respondent Railways had treated the appellant as T.C. And thereafter, was promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from 19-7-1978 with all past benefits and continuity, and this promotion on the basis of seniority was accepted by the appellant and he worked in that capacity till his retirement and that as he was not an aggrieved person, therefore, could not maintain grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
4. Both the parties have filed affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court , thereafter, dismissed the grievance petition, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmad, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Railways. This is an admitted position that the appellant was claiming his seniority from 1947 till 1968-69 and was retired from service in 1982 and the present grievance petition was also filed by him in the year 1982. If the grievance of the appellant was not redressed in the year 1968-69, the date upto which the appellant was claimed his seniority right from 1947, then, why he has submitted his grievance petition after a lapse of a long period of 3-4 years i.e. In the year 1982. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held the grievance petition of the appellant as hopelessly time-barred and not maintainable. As regards the point of jurisdiction, it is again admitted that the appellant, in the title of his grievance petition, has shown his address at Latifabad, Hyderabad and the address of the respondent Railways at Lahore and has failed to implead also the proper respondent. Therefore, the learned Labour Court at Karachi, has rightly held that it had no jurisdiction. I agree with the learned Labour Court
6. For the above reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. I, therefore, maintain it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.