1. AWARD In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks re-instatement in service with full back benefits. The applicant's case is that he was employed by the respondent, as News-translator, on 18th October 1967. Having more than 30 years experience in that profession, the applicant performed his duties satisfactorily and, consequently, he was confirmed in the post on 15th April 1969. However, on 13th Mav 1970, he was retrenched from service without assigning any reason. On 5th June 1970 the applicant made respesentation against his removal from service to the respondents, but received no reply. He, therefore, sent a notice to the respondents, dated 9th October 1970, through his Advocate. The 1975 Saeeduddin v. Pakistan Television Corporation 473 (iShaffi Muhammad R. Akhund, Chairman) respondents replied to the notice on 11th November 1970, refusing to take the applicant back in service. Thereafter, he moved this application on 30th December 1970. The applicant states that his retrenchment from service was in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 13, since he was the senior-most News-translator in the department, three persons junior to him are still working there, and another person has been employed on the same post after he was retrenched. The respondents have denied that the applicant was retrenched from service. According to them, his services were terminated under Standing Order l2, as no longer required. They state the applicant, who was more than 55 years of age at the time of his appointment, was employed more on humanitarian grounds than on any other consideration. However, on account of advancing age, his efficiency was affected adversely and he could not bear the strain of work nor act up to the required standard. He was more than 59 years of age when his services were terminated. He was engaged on contract basis, and one of the terms of the contract was that after confirmation his services were liable to be terminated by one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. Since the applicant had accepted these terms in writing, he is now estopped under the law to resile from them. The respondents have denied that the representation dated 5th July 1970 was received from the applicant. They, however, admit that the notice dated 9th October 1970 was received by them, and they had replied to it, informing the applicant that his services were terminated and he could not be taken back on duty. During the proceedings, the applicant filed his affidavit in evidence on 26th October 1971, and the matter was adjourned to 16th December 1971 for his cross-examination.
2. On that date, the matter was again adjourned to 4th April 1972, at the request of the respondents.
3. On 4th April 1972, however, none was present for the respondents, nor was any application for adjournment made. Consequently, the side of the respondents was closed. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on several dates of hearing, but on no date of hearing appearance was made by the respondents or any application moved by them requesting for permission to lead their evidence. The applicant, in his affidavit, besides reiterating the averments made in the application, has produced the relevant documents. These consist of the letters of his appointment, confirmation, and termination of services, Annexures *A\ 'B' and 'C' respectively, the representation dated 5th June 1970, and the acknowledgment receipt Annexures 'D* and 'E\ the notice dated 9th October 1970, and reply of the respondents dated 11th November 1970, Annexures *F* and 'G'. Now, it is true that the statement of the applicant stands unchallenged, and there is no evidence in rebuttal by the respondents. But, the facts show that the application is legally not maintainable.
4. The applicant claims that he was retrenched from service. But, from the documents produced by him, it is evident that his services were terminated under Standing Order l2. In the letter dated 13th May, 1970, Annexure 'C' the applicant was informed that his services were no longer required and that he would be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice in addition to encashment of his accumulated leave. Again, in their reply dated 11th November 1970, Annexure 'G', the respondents have informed the applicant, through his Advocate, that his services bad been terminated and he was not retrenched as alleged by him. Besides this, one ofL the terms in the letter of appointment of the applicant Annexure 'A', is tof the effeet that even after confirmation his services were liable to be terminated by one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof on either side. The appointment was accepted by the applicant on these terms by endorsing at the foot of the letter, "I gratefully accept the offer". The proviso to Standing Order 18(6) clearly lays down that no complaint shall be against an order of termination of employment unless the workman concerned is an officer of registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities, or he has been deprived of the benefits accruing to him under the Ordinance. In the present case, the applicant does not claim to be an Officer of the Trade Union, nor has he been deprived of the benefits accruing to him on termination. However, even assuming that the applicant was retrenched from service in violation of the provisions of Standing Order' 13, the application would still not be maintainable because the applicant has not complied with the procedure laid down in the Standing Order 18. The services of the applicant were terminated on 13th May 1970. He had to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer within 15 days. But, the representation he has made is dated 5th June 1970 i.e., beyond the period of limitation. The acknowledgment receipt, however, shows that it was posted on 22nd June 1970, and received by the respondents on 28th June 1970. In case of failure of the employer to give decisions on the grievance notice of the employee, the latter is required to make the complaint to the Court within 60 days of the date of the grievance notice. But, the present application has been moved on 30th December 1970 i. e. nearly 7 months after the date of his grievance notice. The application is, therefore, clearly time- barred. The fact that the application has been moved under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not absolve the applicant from following the procedure laid down in Standing # Order 18, since the remedy is sought under the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In a recent decision of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, in the (M/s Saleemsons Ltd. v. Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, and another), it has been Held that the provisions in paras (a) and (b) of the Standing Order 18, are mandatory, and have to be strictly complied with. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I find that the application is not maintainable, and it is dismissed accordingly.