DECISION ' The appellant was working as Stenographer with the respondent No,2. In the grievance petition he was not specific about the date of the termination of his service but in the grievance notice he had taken the stand that he had been removed from service in 1988. The written statement filed by respondent No, 2 disclosed that he had been removed from service with one month's notice on 16- 6-1983 and he had collected all the payments due to him on that date and the case was totally malicious.
2. It is not necessary to dilate on the evidence in the case. It is clearly made out that he had parted from the respondents firm on 16-3-1983. Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned representative for the appellant has candidly admitted the fact and that the grievance notice had been sent by him on 15-6-1988.
3. All that he contended was that because the appellant's services had been terminated verbally and without giving any reason, therefore such a termination of service was a mere nullity in law and under the circumstances even a delayed grievance notice should pass muster.
4. There can be no conceivable justification to condone a delay of over 5 years and I am afraid that the contention hardly deserves any serious consideration. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.