DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI, at Hyderabad, dated 8-1-1990, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The main ground on which the grievance petition was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer was that it was time-barred. Admittedly the appellant was dismissed from service vide order, dated 22-5-1985, but, he served grievance notice on the respondents on 20-9-1987 and filed grievance petition thereafter. Section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, under which relief was sought by the appellant makes it mandatory for him to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer within 3 months. Mr. A. Majeed, learned Representative for the appellant has tried to explain the delay by stating that the appellant was in jail and that he was convicted and after he was acquitted in appeal, has got the copies of the appellate order and then served grievance notice.
4. The relevant dates may be pointed to appreciate the arguments of Mr. A. Majeed. The order of dismissal is dated 22-5-1985. The appellant is said to have been arrested on 7-2-1985 and was released on bail on 4-11-1985. He was convicted on 13-10-1986, and was acquitted in appeal on 4- 2-1987. The appellant applied for copies on 18-5-1987 which he got on 25-5-1987. He, thereafter served grievance notice upon the respondents on 20-9-1987. It will be seen that even after his release on bail and before his conviction, the appellant had more than 3 months to serve grievance notice. Similarly after his acquittal, he had not applied for the copies within three months. He, even after receipt of the copies, served grievance notice after more than 3 months.
' However, the dismissal order of the appellant was not passed on the ground of his conviction, but, was passed after domestic enquiry and as such, he need not have waited for the result of the criminal proceedings. From every angle, the case is judged, it is hopelessly time-barred. There is no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay of more than 2 years. As such, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the petition as time-barred. I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.