1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner was appointed as workman by respondent No,
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed temporarily and according to the appointment letter last received by the petitioner his services were to end on 18-7-1988. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on a criminal charge and was released on bail on 7-9-1988. Thereafter, he verbally reported to the said respondent's Manager at Tando Adam but was asked to wait till the decision of the said case.
2. The petitioner was thereafter acquitted on 4-1-1991. It is alleged by the petitioner that thereafter he approached the said respondent again on 10-1-1991 for being taken on duty but was refused as he was told that he was no longer in the service of the respondent. The petitioner then sent a grievance notice to the respondent. On 31-1-1991 and thereafter filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was allowed. However, on an appeal filed before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal by respondent No, 2, the order of the learned Labour Court was reversed and hence the petition.
3. ' As is evident from the decision of the learned Appellate Tribunal, the order of the learned Labour Court has been reversed on the ground that grievance notice sent by the petitioner was time- barred. Admittedly, after grant of bail to the petitioner he approached the employer in September, 1988 who declined to re-instate him. Since the petition was filed in 1991, after the grievance notice dated 31-1-1991 was not favourably considered by respondent No,2, obviously the same was miserably time-barred. Chaudhry Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cause of action accrued to the petitioner after 4-1-1991 when the petitioner was acquitted but we find no force in the said contention. The petitioner has evidently failed to discharge his onus to establish that where he had approached the employer after 7-9-1988, when he was granted bail by the trial Court, he was asked to come after he had been cleared of the charge. Since the same was emphatically denied by respondent No, 2's witness before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner could not discharge his burden by producing any reliable evidence in this regard. The question whether cause of action accrued to the petitioner after 7-9-1988 or whether the same accrued after 4-1-1991 when the petitioner is said to have been acquitted, as a pure question of fact and we find no reason to go into this question again as the question has already been dealt with by the learned Appellate Tribunal and we see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in this regard. In case the crucial date is 7-9-1988 on which date the petitioner allegedly approached his employer or soon thereafter, then the learned tribunal is right in holding that the grievance petition sent by the petitioner was miserably time-barred in view of the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. We, therefore, find no force in this petition.
4. ' In the result, this petition is dismissed in limine together with Miscellaneous Application No, 5215/94, which has become infructuous in view of this order.