' The decision dated 23-3-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab- Labour Court No, 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed as time-barred. On merits the learned lower Court has however found that the appellant had a good case.
2. The facts are that the appellant was compulsorily retired from service on 19-9-1969. Before retirement he had been issued a charge-sheet also. The relevant order is Exh. R.6 dated 20-11-1973.
The order does not bear the signature of the appellant in token of information given to him about the retirement. No postal or A/D receipt was produced to show that the order of retirement was served upon the appellant. The case of the appellant was that he had learnt about the retirement from the written statement filed in his suit for declaration to the effect that he was still in service of the respondent. The written statement was filed in June, 1973. The suit was dismissed on 6-10-1982 on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. On 19-1-1983 grievance notice was served.
There is no application for condemnation of delay. Even if the time spent in the civil Court is excluded although there appear no justification for it, even then the grievance notice was hopelessly time-barred. The suit was dismissed on 6-10-1982 and from that date the time started running which expired on 5-1-1983 but the grievance notice was sent on 19-1-1983. As mentioned above no application for condensation of delay was given explaining the reasons for sending the grievance notice late. Even the grievance petition was time-barred from the date of issuance of the grievance notice. Since the grievance notice was sent on 19-1-1983 the grievance petition could be brought up to 3-4-1983 within 2-1/2 months but it was presented on 10-4-1983. There is no application for condemnation of delay. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in dismissing the grievance petition as time-barred. The learned counsel for the parties have not argued the merits of the case.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismissed the same.