' This is an appeal against the decision, dated 31st July, 1999, passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No,5, at Karachi, dismissing the Grievance Application No,191 of 1998, instituted under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. The appellant is present in person and submits that he was misguided by the respondent that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has no application to the facts of the case and that is why he approached the Federal Service Tribunal and because of that a delay of about one year and four months have taken place.
3. The learned Presiding Officer has narrated the entire history of the case in detail and I need not to repeat the same as being unnecessary. He, however, found the application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, as not maintainable in view of the promulgation of section 2-A, inserted in the Service Tribunals Act on 10th June, 1997 and further that the application suffers from an inordinate delay of one year and four months.
4. It appears that after termination of service on 16-11-1996, the appellant, although served a grievance notice within the prescribed period in law, but filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on or about 15-4-1997, which was dismissed by order, dated 3rd January, 1998 holding that when the appeal was filed, the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction. The appellant, it further appears, that instead of filing a fresh appeal before the Service Tribunal, as section 2-A had already been inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, filed an application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court, which had no jurisdiction to entertain such application.
5. Mr. Sher Afgan produces a copy of the Ordinance X of 1961, the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961, published on 10th March, 1961. A perusal of the same shows that it is a body established by or under the Federal Law, which is covered under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and the appellant shall be treated to be a civil servant for a limited purpose and now as and from 10-6-1997, the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the appellant.
6. The learned Presiding Officer seems to be correct in dismissing the application or want of jurisdiction and so this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly.
8. Before parting with the matter, it may be observed that it seems to be a hard case, but my hands are tied down by law. I am unable to do anything for the appellant. With due respect, in my humble view, the Service Tribunal had the exclusive, jurisdiction when it was seized of the matter at the time of passing the order. The appellant may, however, file fresh appeal before the Service Tribunal, if so advised.
' Announced in open Court, this the 18th October, 1999.