' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J--Petitioner Irshad Hussain has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against an order passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on 30-4-1990 in Appeal No, KAR-240 of 1989.
2. Admittedly the petitioner was Assistant Foreman in service of Pakistan Railways till his retirement ordered under the impugned letter dated 30-3-1987 with effect from 2-5-1987, although his retirement date in normal course was 11-12-1996. Earlier on 6-12-1986 the petitioner moved an application for 60 days' leave which was refused. Then on 29-12-1986 he applied for retirement leave for one year and on 4-2-1987 he moved for grant of L.P.R. He also moved an application on 3- 3-1987 and on 11-3-1987 for transfer. On 30-3-1987 the impugned order was issued.
3. In his application dated 10-5-1987 to the Divisional Personnel Officer (respondent No, 5), in his grievance notice dated S-7-1987 to the respondent No,2, and in his grievance application moved before the 1st Labour Court, Karachi, the petitioner resented his retirement. In his application to the respondent No, 5, petitioner prayed for restoration of the benefit of which he was deprived, in consequence of issuance of the retirement order dated 30-3-1987. In his grievance noticed dated 8-7-1987 the petitioner prayed for reinstatement. In his grievance application the petitioner did not pray for reinstatement but he made following prayer:- "(a) That this Honourable Court may pass an order directing the respondents to grant the applicant pre-retirement leave from 3-5-1987 to 2-5-1988 and to make the payment of wages/salary of 455 days Rs,35,465 (28,286 loss of salary due to non-grant of one year L.P.R. Plus Rs,7,179 loss of 90 days salary) and loss in gratuity Rs,20,276 thereby making total loss of Rs,55,741 as computed and given in the enclosed "Schedule of Loss".
(b) Future loss of Rs,77 per month, the difference amount in pension for over as mentioned in the enclose "Schedule of Loss".
4. On 28-3-1988 the petitioner moved an application for amendment of his grievance application.
By way of amendment the petitioner wanted to add in his application that he was a workman and he did not belong to supervisory staff. By way of amendment he wanted to add prayer for declaration to the effect that the order of pre-mature retirement dated 30-3-1987 was void ab initio, mala fide, without lawful authority, inoperative and in clear infringement of the guaranteed rights under the Railway Rules and other provisions of law. He also wanted to add the prayer for his reinstatement in service till he attained the age of superannuation. Said amendment was allowed by the learned Labour Court under an order dated 2-5-1988, without considering the question whether the prayer for reinstatement was within the period of limitation in the light of provisions contained by section 25-A of I.R.O.
5. Under the order dated 12-3-1989 learned Labour Court held the order of retirement dated 30-3- 1987 to be void ab initio, mala fide, without lawful authority, inoperative and in clear infringement of the guaranteed right of the petitioner and set aside the same. The learned Labour Court further directed the respondent s Nos. 2 to 5 to take the petitioner on duty and to allow him to perform his duty till he attained the age of superannuation and to pay him all the back benefits with effect from 2-5-1987 after deducting the amount of gratuity or pension paid to the petitioner. Said decision was challenged by respondents Nos.2 to 5 before the learned Tribunal under Appeal No, KAR-240/89. Under the impugned decision dated 30-4-1990, learned Tribunal partially accepted the appeal. Learned Tribunal set aside order of Labour Court about reinstatement of the petitioner in service, but directed the petitioner to be granted the leave preparatory to retirement from 3-5- 1987 to 2-5-1988 and held that the petitioner was to be considered to have retired on expiry of said period of LPR and his pension was ordered to be fixed from the new date of retirement following the period of LPR. Petitioner was also ordered to be paid the difference between the pension/gratuity fixed in keeping with the new date of retirement and the pension/gratuity already paid to him.
Being dis-satisfied with such decision, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
6. Mir. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner, criticised the impugned decision and argued that since the retirement order dated 30-3-1987 was held to be ab initio void, mala fide and inoperative by the Labour Court, which finding was not disturbed by learned Tribunal, hence as a consequence of such finding the petitioner should have been ordered to be reinstated in service.
This point has been dealt with under the impugned order, where learned Tribunal held that by way of amendment the petitioner had introduced a new claim for reinstatement, which was not claimed in the initial grievance application and as such the question of limitation with regard to new claim cannot be ignored. In this view of the matter the learned Tribunal held prayer of the petitioner with respect to his reinstatement to be time-barred.
7. The cause of grievance arose to the petitioner on 2-5-1987 when he received the retirement order dated 30-3-1987. He sent his grievance notice to the respondent on 8-7-1987 viz. Within three months of accrual of the cause of action and it was within the period prescribed by subsection (1) of section 25-A of I.R.O. The respondent No, 2 did not reply the grievance notice and consequently the petitioner was to file his grievance application in the Labour Court within two months from the expiry of the period of 15 days mentioned in subsection (2) of section 25-A of I.R.O., in view of the proviso below subsection (4) of section 25-A of the I.R.O. The grievance application was filed in the Labour Court on 15-8-1987 and it was within the period of limitation mentioned above. However, the prayer for reinstatement was introduced in the grievance application through an application for amendment which was moved on 28-3-1988. The prayer for reinstatement introduced on 28-3- 1988 was clearly time-barred and it should not have been allowed by the Labour Court. On this point we subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Tribunal, which is supported by certain decisions of the superior Courts, discussed in the impugned order.
8. No arguments were addressed in respect of that part of the impugned order by which certain financial benefits were granted to the petitioner.
9. As a result of the above discussion we are of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by learned Labour Tribunal. We would, therefore, dismiss this petition in limine.
' These' are reasons for our short order dated 15-8-1990 by which we dismissed this petition in limine.