' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The appellants in these appeals were employees of Water and Power Development Authority. At the relevant time they were serving as meter clerks in Chichawatni of District Sahiwal. There were allegations against them that in order to help an unscrupulous consumer they recorded bogus figures and indulged in other malpractices with the result that the Authority had to suffer heavy losses in revenue. They were served with charge-sheets and an enquiry committee was set up to enquire into the allegations against them. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry committee, the Executive Engineer, incharge of their office, by orders dated 24-12-1978, dismissed them from service. On 26-12-1978, they filed appeals before the Executive Engineer. By an order dated 3-2-1979, the Executive Engineer refused to entertain the appeals for the reason that these lay before the Superintending Engineer and not before him.
2. While their appeals were pending in the office of the Executive Engineer, the appellants on 17-1- 1979 moved grievance petitions before the Labour Court. By an order dated 22-1-1980, the Labour Court dismissed the applications on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
3. On 7-5-1979, the appellants preferred appeals before the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer did not dispose of the appeals within 90 days. Upon this, the appellants filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal from the order of the Executive Engineer: These were dismissed on 4-11-1980 as barred by time. Subsequently, on 12-1-1980, the Superintending Engineer informed the appellants that their appeals had been rejected. From the order of the Superintending Engineer they again approached the Federal Service Tribunal in appeal. The learned Tribunal dismissed their appeals now on the ground that their appeals before the Superintending Engineer were barred by time.
4. From the orders of the Superintending Engineer it appears that he had dismissed the appeals on merits and not on the ground of limitation. Leave to appeal to the appellants was granted tb consider the question whether the Federal Service Tribunal could on its own take into account the bar of limitation when the Superintending Engineer had not chosen to base his orders on this ground. This question has since been settled by the decision of this Court in Muhammad Ishaq v.
Shah Muhammad (1985 SCM R 799). It was ruled in this case that though the appellate Court was not bound to examine the question of limitation regarding the proceedings before the lower forum but it would not be committing any illegality if it did so. This being the view of the Court, the order of the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality.
5. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that while computing limitation in respect of appeals filed before the Superintending Engineer they were entitled under section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the time which they had spent in prosecuting their grievance petitions before the Labour Court. This contention was examined by the learned Tribunal and it found that the appellants were not so entitled as the proceedings before the Labour Court were not initiated with due care and caution. This is a finding of fact with which we would not interfere.
6. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.