' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, dated 6-11-1998, whereby Constitution Petition No,D- 761 of 1998 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of Sindh Labour Court No,5 was upheld.
2. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, contended before us that the two Courts below while holding the petitioner as a temporary employee of respondent No,3 (Messrs Karachi Sheraton Hotel) failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The petitioner specifically referred to his affidavit filed before the Labour Court in support of his contention. The learned Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal both reached the conclusion after examining evidence on record which also included the documents produced by the petitioner before them that the petitioner was employed by respondent No,3 temporarily in connection with renovation work carried out in the hotel of respondent No,3. The petitioner has himself produced his appointment letter dated 19-9- 1993 which clearly states that the employment of the petitioner was for a period of 9 months which could be extended further due to delay in completion of the project. It is therefore, quite clear that the petitioner was employed by respondent No,3 on a project which was of temporary nature and likely to be finished within a specified period. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner was a temporary employee of respondent No,3, is not open to any exception. Both the learned Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal also reached the conclusion that the grievance petition filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court was hopelessly time-barred. The petitioner disputed the service of termination letter dated 12-3-1995 and claimed that it was only in the month of July, 1995 when he came to know about alleged termination of his services. The Labour Court as well as learned Labour Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner has not been proved that he worked with the respondent No,3 up to July, 1995 as he failed to produce any evidence from the office of respondent No,3 to the effect that he remained in the employment of respondent No,3 up to July, 1995 and received payment of salary and other dues during this period.
The learned Courts below also came to the conclusion concurrently that there was evidence on record to conclude that notice of termination of services of the petitioner was duly served on him which is supported by postal receipts produced before the Courts below. The above findings of fact are in accord with the evidence on record and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that these findings suffered from any misreading or non-consideration of any material piece of evidence on record. No case, whatsoever, is made out for interference with the order of learned Division Bench of the High Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.