' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 31-7-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been declared as time-barred. On merits, no doubt, the learned lower Court says that the appellant has no case but the evidence has not been discussed. The observation is not contradictory as well. It is observed, "Even otherwise there is not an iota and scintalla of evidence to lend support to the petitioner's case which stands fully rebutted by the data and material available on the record." If there was no evidence, how it could stand rebutted by the material available on the file? It shows that the learned lower Court has not properly scrutinized the case. It has also not been explained how the appellant was duly heard before penalized for the commission of the alleged irregularities.
2. The grievance petition made by the appellant was not under section 25-A but under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for which no period of limitation is fixed. The petition, therefore, could not be declared as time-barred.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision. The parties will be at liberty to produce any more evidence in support of their contentions if they so liked. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.