1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Present Constitution petition calls in question a decision given in Appeal No, HYD-402 of 1985 by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1 was Wireman in office of the Electrical Inspector, Hyderabad. On 12-8-1979 he was issued a show-cause notice containing the allegations that he being regular student of the Government College of Technology, Hyderabad often remained absent from duty and that he frequently availed of leave under some false pretexts for appearing at. The Semester Examination conducted by said College. Under an ' order dated 9-10-1979 services of respondent No, 1 were terminated.
3. ' Respondent No, 1 after serving grievance notice upon the petitioner filed grievance application in the Labour Court at Hyderabad. The grievance application was contested by the petitioner, who took stand that the respondent No, 1 was not a workman. Under an order dated 25-5-1980 the Labour Court Hyderabad held that respondent No, 1 was workman under the I.R.O. And that the Labour Court had jurisdiction in the matter. After holding so, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of respondent .No, 1 with back benefits. Said order was challenged before the Tribunal, which held under an order dated 22-9-1980 that respondent No, 1 was a civil servant and he was not covered by the definition of workman given in I.R.O. And he could not maintain a grievance application under section 25-A of I.R.O. After holding so, learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and ordered dismissal of the grievance application.
4. ' Aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged in Constitution Petition No, D-1708/80 which was accepted by this Court on 20-2-1985 and the appeal was remanded to the Tribunal, after taking view that the respondent No, 1 was a workman. After the order of remand, learned Tribunal re- heard the appeal and dismissed the same under the impugned decision dated 18-11-1990. Hence this Constitution petition.
5. ' We have heard Mr. Syed Jahangir Hussain Shah, Advocate for respondent No,
1. Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari, A.A.-G. Appeared for the petitioner but did not argue the matter.
6. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, took the view that the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice were vague and lacked in particulars about the dates on which respondent No, 1 was absent and that there was nothing to show that the alleged misconduct was brought to notice of respondent No, 1 within one month as required under Standing Order 15(4) and that a witness of the petitioner had admitted that no inquiry was held before termination of services. After holding so learned A Tribunal observed that the order of termination of service was rightly set aside by the Labour Court. It was argued before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner, that the grievance notice sent by respondent No, 1 was time-barred but this contention was not accepted by the Tribunal, on the ground that the grievance notice was given on 15-11-1979 within one month of the order of termination dated 9-10-1979. In this respect learned counsel for respondent No, 1 cited the case of Ghulam Hussain and another v. General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others 1986 PLC 312 which is a decision by Tribunal of Punjab and not binding on this Court.
7. ' In our view the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the impugned decision.
8. Consequently this petition stands dismissed.