DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 12-12-1987, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, II at Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant as time-barred.
2. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant and Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. The admitted facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was dismissed from service by the respondents on 12-2-1979. However, on representation, he was reinstated in service from 18-8-1980 with minor punishment of reduction in rank for two years. He moved several applications/representations against the said reduction in rank. On 24-10-1985, he received reply rejecting his representation/appeal and consequently after service of the grievance notice, he filed his grievance petition.
3. It is a settled law that wherever right of appeal is provided for under relevant rules or law, the period consumed in pursuing the appeal, has to be excluded from the period of limitation. In the instant case, the appellant is stated A to have been making several representations/appeals against the impugned order, dated 18-8-1980. Under relevant rules, the right of one appeal is provided within two months of the impugned order. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative has referred to the reply of the respondents dated 24-10-1985. According to him by this reply, not only application/representation of appellant, dated 27-5-1985 was replied, but his appeal, dated 25-12- 1980 has also been replied. The appeal which can extend the time of limitation would be an appeal under the rules filed within the period of limitation of 2 months. The appeal referred to in this reply which is Exh. A/13 is shown to be dated 25-12-1980 whereas the impugned order is dated 18-8-1980.
Thus, even this appeal was hopelessly time-barred and the time consumed in pursuing the time- barred appeal which was not maintainable, could not be excluded from the period of limitation.
Furthermore, the appellant B in his cross-examination had admitted that after reversion order dated 18-8-1980, he submitted another appeal with the request that for the intervening period between removal and reinstatement may be treated on duty and the payment be made to him and that appeal was rejected by the authority on 15-3-1981. This admission of the appellant himself clearly shows that even his time-barred appeal was decided on 15-3-1981. The reply Exh. A/13 is only with regard to the application, dated 27-5-1985, but, because it concerned the same subject, a reference was made to the appeal also. The grievance notice was admittedly given on 20-1-1986, and the grievance petition was filed thereafter. Whether we take the date of cause of action as 18- 8-1980 when the impugned order was passed, or 15-3-1981 when the appeal was rejected, in either case, the grievance notice as well as grievance petition is hopelessly time-barred. According to section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, the workman has to bring to the notice of his employer his grievance within 3 months from the date of cause of action. The grievance petition on basis of grievance notice given after period of limitation was, therefore, not maintainable. Mere fact that the appellant had been making representations after representations for reconsideration of the impugned order would not extend the period of limitation. Reference may be made to the case of Khan Muhammad v. Senior Superintendent Police, Rawalpindi, reported in 1989 SCMR 589, wherein their Lordships had observed we do not agree with the learned counsel that the period spent after the dismissal of the departmental appeal of the petitioner in pursuing still another departmental remedy which ultimately was held to be not competent, or the aforementioned nine days, could be excluded from the period of limitation".
4. In view of the above legal and factual position, I find no merit in this appeal and hold that the grievance petition was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court as time-barred. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.