DECISION ' Appellant Nisar Ahmed got employment in Karachi Sheraton Hotel (the respondents) initially as a Bar Boy on 1-6-1991. Thereafter, he was redesignated as steward. On 17-8-1992 the respondents issued show-cause notice to the appellant which was somehow withdrawn. Again on 27-9-1992 he was given another show-cause notice accompanied by a copy of complaint made against him by Mr. Aslam. As a result enquiry was held against the appellant which resulted in the order of dismissal made against him on 17-12-1992. The appellant claims that after compliance of legal formalities he filed grievance petition in the Vth Sindh Labour Court Karachi who by impugned order, dated 16-5-1998 dismissed his petition. Hence this appeal filed by the appellant against the said dismissal.
2. I have carefully perused the material brought on record and have also considered the arguments made at the bar.
3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel of the respondents was that appeal was time- barred. Admittedly the period of limitation for filing appeal came to expire during the summer vacation. As such the argument of the appellant was that in such case the appeal could be filed on opening day of the Court after vacation and as it was filed accordingly it could not be held as time-barred. In support of this argument the learned counsel relied upon Supreme Court authority reported as 1997 SCM R 860 wherein it was held:-- ' The proposition is well-settled by now that section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not extend the period of limitation prescribed under the law: it simply permits suit, appeal or application to be tiled on re-opening of the Court, if the period of limitation expires on day when the Court is close."
4. Disagreeing with the above position, the learned counsel for the respondents however, contended that since the registry of the Court remained open during the vacation the tiling of appeal could not be avoided on excuse of closure of the Court due to vacation. In this connection my attention was invited to the case reported as 1999 SCM R p. 108 wherein it was held:-- "The learned counsel for the petitioner was labouring under the impression that the registries of this Court are closed during vacation. The closure of Peshawar High Court at that time or any other High Court any particular time is not relevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for petitions to be filed in the Supreme Court. Suffice it to say when this Court is in vacation it cannot be said that its registries are also close. As a matter of fact, the registries are always open for receiving the petition and other work . Section 4 of Limitation Act has no application. Also see Jumma v. Maulvi Mubarak (1971 SCM R 779), wherein following the Full Court's decision of this Court in the case of Fateh Ali Khan (supra), this Court declined to condone the delay due to the fact the offices were open for their ordinary and routine business which includes the reception of petition for leave to appeal."
' Although the above case occurred later than the case reported as 1992 SCMR 960 yet the earlier case being the decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court should take precedence over the later case but again the later case which is based on full Court decision in the case of Fateh Ali Khan could not be overlooked in preference to the dictum laid down in the earlier case. I would, therefore, follow the decision given in the later case and would consequently hold that appeal was time-barred.
5. Coming to the merits of the case the respondent's learned counsel pointed out a glaring defect in the case inasmuch as that no grievance notice was ever issued before filing of the grievance petition and as such the grievance petition was not maintainable according to section 25-A. I.R.O.
He has drawn my attention to grievance petition filed in the Labour Court which is no doubt totally silent as to whether any grievance notice was served on the respondents. The alleged grievance notice appears at page 33 of the Lower Court's record as Exh.A.4. Its perusal reveals that petitioner intended to give grievance notice only after copies of the documents specified in the said notice were supplied to him. As such the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this cannot be accepted as grievance notice. In this connection the appellant's learned counsel has drawn my attention to Exh.A.5 at page 35 of the Lower Court's record which appears to be the reply to the grievance notice. In the said reply the last line clearly states:- "Under the circumstances we regret that you cannot be reinstated in service. "
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred me to the case reported as NLR 1996 Labour 120 which shows that for giving grievance notice no particular form is necessary. All that is needed is that it should be brought to the notice of the employer that the employee concerned has certain grievance. The grievance notice dated 2-2-1993 (A.4) referred to above read with reply (A/5) was enough to bring it to the notice of the General Manager of Karachi Sheraton Hotel as to what grievance the appellant had. As such I would hold that grievance petition was maintainable on that account.
7. Coming to the last point whether termination of services of the appellant were justified, I would like to first examine whether the enquiry which resulted in dismissal of the appellant was legally held. It seems the enquiry started with issuance of show-cause notice to the appellant (A/2) which contains the allegations against the appellant. In support of the allegations some witnesses have been produced in evidence. From them the statement of Mr. Mohsin Qureshi Ex-Chief Steward who figures as Complainant against the appellant is important. According to him on 29-8-1992 at about 1/30 a.m. Supervisor asked the appellant as to why he had stocked 4 trollies of dirty pots and pans, directing him to clear the same but somehow the appellant refused to wash the dirty pots and pans and instead gave a curt reply to the Supervisor better not to bother him. When this witness came in the morning at about 8-30 a.m. He found washing area full of dirty pots and pans.
He contacted Supervisor Aslam and asked him why the washing area was not made clear. In reply he told him that the appellant (Nisar) who was to wash the dirty pots and pans refused to do so and instead misbehaved with him. He is supported by another witness Mohsin Qureshi who has repeated the story of washing area full of dirty pots and 4 trollies with dirty pots and pan. Similarly Mr. Aslam who was Stewarding Supervisor stating in his version that on night shift, he had put the appellant on duty at 1-30 a.m. And when he checked him he was doing nothing and 4 trollies of dirty pots and pans were stocked there. When he asked the appellant to wash them he refused to do so saying that he should not be bothered as the procedure he was telling him was wrong.
8. There is no reason to disbelieve the above evidence. The witnesses have denied the suggestion that they had any or prejudice against the appellant, therefore, their evidence cannot be dubbed as biased and hence unbelievable. Rather their evidence proved the allegations made against the appellant. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant was rightly dismissed on basis of the allegations of misbehavior/misconduct proved by the evidence of aforesaid witnesses.
' In view of what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Lower Court is correct and is hereby upheld. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.