DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated March 23, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant-Union for re-instatement of one Mr. J. J. Miranda, who was Accounts Officer of the respondent Society. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that it was a very belated one. The appellant was dismissed on 18th April, 1967. Mr. Miranda made a representation to the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of West Pakistan, which was rejected in March, 1968. In 1970, he filed a Civil Suit for declaration and for recovery o! His dues and damages in the High Court of West Pakistan, which is still pending. In the meantime, it is alleged by the Union, that Mr. Miranda had been sending his representations to various authorities, but with no effect. The Union, therefore, filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) giving rise to the impugned order, on 13th November, 1972.
2. Mr. M. L. Shahani, the learned Representative for the appellant, very strenuously contended that though there is a delay of five years, but it has been fully accounted for and, therefore, the learned Labour Court should not have dismissed his application on the mere ground of delay. In this connection, the learned representative relied on the case of Muhammad Islam, reported in 1969 PLC 545, in support of his contention that though there was a long delay, but as the appellant was pursuing his remedy tefore the proper authorities, the delay should have been ignored. The case relied upon by 'the learned Representative for the appellant is quite distinguishable. In that case, the appellant was pursuing his remedy before the proper authority, i. e. By appeal and revision during the whole of the period of delay. In that case, his revision before the Board of Transport Corporation was still pending when the appellant made his application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 for his re-instatement, In the present case, Mr. Miranda had filed his own affidavit and explained the long delay in to of the paragraphs of his affidavit. They are as under :- "12. That the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Secretary, Co--operation Department, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 15-7-67 and a reply copy to this was received by me vide No. AC (II) I-177/68 (K)-Lahore, dated 6-3-68.
13. That till recently I have keen putting forth my grievances but the Management has refused to redress and my grievances still continue and shall continue till they are redressed."
3. From a perusal of these to paragraphs it is quite clear that the chapter for redress of Mr. Miranda's grievances was closed by the letter, dated 6th March 1968. Thereafter, he did make a representation to some--body, which can be at best a representation for mercy and was not legal one. Mr. Miranda did not disclose anything in Paragraph 13 of his affidavit the authority before whom he made representation in respect of his grievances to enable the Court to find out as to wt whether it car be said to be a legal one. At the the when the cause of actors arose to Mr. Miranda, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960 was in force, If he was a workman, as he claims to be, he should have approached the Union for redress of his grievance. At any rate, after the promulgation of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, he would have taken recourse to Standing Order 18 the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He did not do anything, presumably because he thought that he was not a workman. At any rate, even if he was a workman, he should have not slept over his right for such a long period. It is noteworthy that in the High Court the suit is only for damages and for recovery of his dues. It is not for re-instatement. I am clearly of the view that the application was a very belated one and the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed it. The appeal is dismissed.