DECISION Lal Muhammad the appellant, filed the present appeal against the impugned order, dated 29-11- 1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur, dismissing 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 working in the respondent Railways as C&W Cleaner for more than 9 years and was posted at Jacobabad. That due to illness of his were he obtained leave, but, due to her prolonged illness the appellant could not join the duties after expiry of granted leave. He, however, alleged that he had informed the H. T. R., Jacobabad and when his were was improved he appeared for duty before his Incharge who directed him to go to the office of Divisional Superintendent. On 27-7-1981, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice and that without holding an enquiry, the service of the appellant were terminated by the respondent Railways, vide letter, dated 11-8-1981. The appellant submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 30-3-1983 and during the period from 11-8-1981 till 30-3-1983, he submitted a departmental appeal, mercy petition and even an application for re-appointment, but all such requests of the appellant were rejected by the respondent Railways.
3. The case of the respondents is that the appellant was appointed as C&W Cleaner on 31-8-1973.
That the appellant had absconded from his duty on 6-6-1978 and continued to remain absent upto 4-6-1981 without any application. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice and in his reply to it 3 did not submit reasonable ground of his absence or a proof in support of his contention. That, as the appellant had himself admitted his unauthorized long absence, therefore, it was not necessary to hold an enquiry into the matter, so, he was rightly dismissed from service by the competent authority. Further, it is the case of the respondent Railways that the request of the appellant for re-appointment was rejected as there was a ban on recruitment. The respondent Railways raised the legal objections that no grievance notice had been served upon them and also the grievance petition on the appellant was hopelessly time-barred, hence it is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, Advocate, for the respondent Railways and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is contended by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent Railways that it is an admitted position that the appellant was removed from service vide order, dated 11-8-1981 and his departmental appeal against his removal was rejected. It was further contended that his mercy petition, dated 24-12-1981 and an application for re-appointment, dated 10-4-1982 were also rejected by the respondent Railways. Therefore, the time for serving the grievance notice upon the respondent Railways runs from the date of rejection of the first appeal of the appellant, i.e. Before 24-12-1981. It is further contended that, however, the appellant's last request for re-appointment, dated 10-4-1982 was rejected by the respondent Railways, vide letter, dated 12-5-1982, but, the appellant had served his grievance notice upon the respondent Railways on 20-2-1983, which was more than 18 months after first appeal was rejected and even, after 8 months the date when his last request for re-appointment was rejected on 12-5-1982. It is further pleaded that it is a mandatory provision under section 25-A, I.R.0.1969 that the worker has to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer, in writing, within three months of the date on which cause of such grievance has arisen to him. Therefore, in the instant case, the cause of grievance had arisen to the appellant when his first appeal was rejected before 24-12-1981. And even, on 12-5- 1982, when his request for re-appointment was also rejected by the respondent Railways, thus, the alleged grievance notice, dated 20-2-1982, is clearly, time barred and not maintainable. No where the appellant had explain this inordinate delay. The only plea taken by the appellant in this behalf is that the show-cause notice was issued by the Authorised Officer and so also the order of dismissal of the appellant was issue by the same Officer, therefore, the question of limitation did not arise. The fact is that the show-cause notice was issued by respondent No.3 i.e. The Assistant Mechanical Engineer II, while the order of dismissal was issued by Assistant Personnel Officer, who was not impleaded as IA party in the case and both these officers are competent to act as such.
Therefore, the plea of the appellant as regards to the point of Limitation has no force. I, therefore, hold that the grievance notice and the grievance petition of the appellant are hopelessly time- barred and not sustainable. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to maintain the grievance petition, which is rejected.
5. For the reasons, stated by me above, I maintain the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.