1. DECISION ' An appeal has been filed by the Administrator Taunsa, against the order, dated 30th January 1974, passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Multan Camp at Dera Ghazi Khan, directing re-instatement of Yar Muhammad, Workman (Fitter-cum-Assistant Driver) after his termination of service ordered by the Administrator, Town Committee, Taunsa first on 16th September 1972 and with a short interval of his re-instatement again on 5th February 1973.
2. According to the case of the appellant the respondent was directed to report back to his parent department which is Public Health Engineering Department on 16th September 1972 for want of budgeted provision for his pay. However on 27th September 1972 the respondent was accommodated as of grace in an other capacity pending a dispute over the matter, between the Town Committee and the Public Health Engineering Department about the payment of wages to the water supply staff originally belonging to the later Department and having been merged in that of town committee. That it is extremely difficult for the Town Committee to make the payment to the extra staff of which respondent is the member which has not been on its roll. In the result the service of the respondent was terminated,-vide a detailed order dated 5th February 1973. It is further maintained that the respondent did not object to the order of his termination dated 16th September 1972 and accepted new employment on the rolls of employer of the Town Committee on temporary basis and that the service of the respondent was terminated for want of the funds. A preliminary objection as to the bar of limitation has also been raised.
3. ' This Court in hearing the appeal can scarcely overlook an objection to the limitation before going into the merits of the case. It is patently clear on the record that the respondent was terminated first on 16th September 1972 and subsequently with a short interval of re-instatement was terminated on 5th February 1973. The Junior Labour Court was admittedly moved on 15th October 1973 whereas the respondent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was bound to move the Court within two months of the date the grievance was caused to him. The respondent also failed to file any application in the learned lower Court under section 65 of the said Ordinance read with section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay. The petitioner of the respondent could not be gone into merits while crossing over the lawful limitation in face of his omitting to pray for the exemption of delay. Moreover it has also been pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the Town Committee is governed by special rules of service regulating the terms and the conditions of the service of its employees the respondent should have first approached the proper authorities of the department. The contention is not without force even on the point of jurisdiction. The Authority in this behalf Re: Pakistan International Air Lines Corporation v. Akhtar Aliis referable. It was held in this case that PIA having its own service code prescribing terms and conditions of service of its employees, order of Labour Court declaring dismissal of an employee of PIA as wrongful suffered from jurisdiction defect and was a nullity in law.
4. ' For the reasons given above the appeal contains force on the preliminary points of limitation as well as jurisdiction. The appeal is accepted and the respondent directed to approach the Administrator, Town Committee, Taunsa, for being accommodated in the place of a Fitter as soon as it next occurs or falls vacant as being a rightful person on account of his termination on a technical ground and having failed in his action in the Labour Court in preliminary grounds without failing on the merits of the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 1974 PLC 235