DECISION This is an appeal filed by appellant, Achar son of Karim Dad against the impugned order, dated 4- 6-1984, passed by the VIIth Sind Labour Court at Sukkur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed with the respondent Railways as a Gateman and was posted at Gate No. 52 KM 285/7-8. While, he was on duty from 16 to 24 hours, one Truck No. 4840, being driven by one unlicensed driver forcibly entered into the gate when train 159 Up was approaching the gate. It is pleaded that the signal and the train was not visible from a long distance because of the curve in between and whenever train reached near the gate, he immediately closed one gate, but, when he was attempting to close the other gate, the truck driver forced his entry and thus its back portion collided with the said train. He was then arrested by the police on the very day on the first report lodged by the authorities and on 24-6-1978, he was charge-sheeted by the respondent Railways. It is claimed that without either holding a domestic enquiry or affording an opportunity of defending the charges, the appellant was removed from service, vide order, dated 5-7-1978. Further, that during this period, the appellant continued to face trial before the Resident Magistrate, Larkana, and finally, on 5-6-1980, he was acquitted. He then approached the Railway Administration for his re-instatement but with no effect. On 26-9-1981, the appellant filed an appeal before the Divisional Engineer Sukkur, but, it was dismissed on 1-11-1981.
The appellant then submitted a mercy petition before the General Manager Railways, but, it was also rejected on 6-4-1982. Repeated application was moved on 7-2-1983, but, as there was no result, a grievance notice was served upon the Railways Administration on 1-3-1983, and finally, a grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969 was submitted before the learned Labour Court on 27-4-1983.
2. The petition was resisted by the Railways Administration on the grounds, firstly, that on the date of the incident the appellant was found absent from duty as a result of which the serious accident occurred; secondly, that after this accident the appellant was charge-sheeted and on considering his reply unsatisfactory, the competent authority removed him from service; and lastly, that the application under section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969, is not maintainable mainly because it is hopelessly time-barred inasmuch as the same was filed in the Labour Court after the expiry of about five years.
3. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellant. The most important point which poses for consideration is limitation. According to the appellant, before bringing the grievance in the Labour Court, he first waited for a decision in the criminal proceedings and then he exhausted the departmental remedy by" preferring the appeal. Even if, the appellant had waited for the disposal of the criminal proceedings, such proceedings had terminated in the year 1980 and the appellant should have appealed against his removal to the competent authority immediately on such decision. However, even, after lapse of about one year from the date of acquittal of the appellant in. The criminal proceedings, he preferred an appeal to the Divisional Engineer and no reasons whatsoever have been advanced by him for non-preferring his appeal for such a long time. Since the appellant has not accounted for such a long delay in serving the grievance notice upon the respondent Railways against his removed from service or submission of the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. Therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant before the learned Labour Court was hopelessly time--barred, thus, not maintainable.
4. For the reasons stated by me above, the impugned order of the Labour Court is maintained and the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.