DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Office; of `Rind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated March 28, 1973. Whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant-Union for re-instatement of one Mr. J.J. Miranda, who was Accounts Officer of the respondent-society. 'I he learned Labour Court dismissed the appli--cation on the ground that it was a very belated one. The appellant way dismissed on 18th April 1967. Mr. Miranda made a representation to the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of West Pakistan which was rejected in March 1968. In 1970, he filed a Civil Suit for declaration and for recovery of his dues and damages in the High Court of West Pakistan, which a still pending. In the meantime, it is alleged by the Union, that Mr. Miranda had beer, sending his representations to various authorities, but with no effect. The Union, therefore, filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), giving rise to the impugned order, or: 13th November 1972.
2. Mr. M. L. Shahani, the learned Representative for the appellant, very strenuously contended that though there is a delay of five years, but it has been fully accounted for and, therefore, the learned Labour Court should not have dismissed his application on the mere ground of delay. In this connection, the learned Representative relied on the case of Mohammad Islam (1969 PLC 545), in support of his contention that though there was a long delay, but as the appellant was pursuing his remedy before the proper authorities, the delay should have been ignored. The case relied upon by the learned Representative for the appellant is quite distinguishable. In that case, the appellant was pursuing his remedy before the proper authority, I e. By appeal and revision during the whole of the period of delay. In that case; his revision before the Road Transport Corporation was still pending when the appellant made his application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 for his re-instatement. In the present case--- Mr. Miranda bad filed his own affidavit and explained the long delay in two of the paragraphs of his affidavit. They are as under :- "'12, That the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore dated 15-7-1967 and a reply copy to this was received by me vide No. AC(II)I-177/68 (K) Lahore dated 6-3-68.
13. That till recently I have been putting forth my grievances but the Management has refused to redress and my grievances still continue and shall continue till they are redressed."
3. From a perusal of these two paragraphs it is quite clear that the chapter for redress of Mr. Miranda`s grievances was closed by the letter dated 6th March 1968. Thereafter, he did make a representation to some body, which can be at best a representation for mercy and was not a legal one. Mr. Mirarda did not disclose anything in paragraph 13 of his affidavit the authority before whom he made representation in respect of his grievances to enable the Court to find out as to whether it can be said to he a legal one. At the time when the cause of action arose to Mr. Miranda Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960 was in force. If lie was a workman, as he claims to be, he should have approached the Union for redress of his grievance. At any rate after the promulgation of the West Pakistan industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, he could have taken recourse to standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He did not do anything, presumably because he thought that be was not a workman. At any rate, ever, if he was a workman, he should have not slept over his nigh for such a long period. It is note worthy that in the High Court the suit is only for damages and for recovery of his dues. It is not for re-instatement E am clearly of the view that the application was a very belated one and the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed it. The appeal is dismissed.