DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 6-8-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent Railways, but, he ceased to be in the service of the respondent under the relevant Railways Rules with effect from 5-4-1977, on the ground that he continuously remained absent from the duty unauthorisedly and without any intimation, vide their letter, dated 10-3-1984. That it was alleged by the appellant that he received a letter of dismissal/ termination from his service for the first time on 15-1-1985 and in consequence thereof, he sent a grievance notice on 9-2-1985 and thereafter, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court on 6-4-1985 and as a precautionary measure, the appellant also submitted an application for condonation of delay alongwith the main petition.
3. The respondent Railways resisted the application for condonation of delay and submitted an affidavit wherein they had stated inter-alia, mainly that the grievance petition filed by the appellant was far beyond the statutory period prescribed for filing a greivance petition, so, it was hopelessly time-barred, not by days, weeks and months, but, by a long period of about 3 years and that the appellant did not discharge his duties to explain the delay of each day with reasonable justification, hence, the petition was not maintainable in Law, was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties had contested only the application for condonation of delay before the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court by dismissing the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the petition, had also dismissed the main grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, as having been hopelessly barred by time, hence, this appeal.
5. Nemo was present on behalf of the appellant. I have carefully perused the impugned order and have gone throughly the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position by the appellant that he remained absent from duty without permission or intimation to his employer, respondent Railways with effect from 5-4-1977 till 5-4-1982, when the appellant was issued orders of removal of his services and that the grievance petition was filed by him before the learned Labour Court on 7-4-1985. The appellant could not reasonably explain this long day. There is nothing on record in support of the contentions of the appellant. The admitted litigations between the parties before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has no relevancy with the proceedings under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The learned Labour Court has rightly disallowed the application of the appellant for condonation of delay and in consequence thereof it has correctly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O. I, therefore, agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court.
6. For the above reasons, the impugned order is maintained and this appeal is dismissed in limine.
M. Y. H./894/Lb.