' Mr. Mohammad Hussain the appellant was employed as skilled fitter in Loco Shops of Pakistan Railways, Moghalpura, Lahore. He was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct with effect from 17th June 1969. His departmental appeal was also rejected on 7,h August 1969.
Thereafter the appellant instead of having recourse to the procedure then provided in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 filed a declaratory civil suit in a Civil Court at Lahore seeking a declaration to the effect that his dismissal was illegal and void. His suit was dismissed on 8th December 1970.
He preferred an appeal to the District Judge which too was dismissed on 25th October 1973.
Thereafter the appellant filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court. The said revision petition was dismissed by the High Court and while dismissing the revision his Lordship Mr. Justice Shamim Hussain Qadri made the following observation on 17th September 1974 :- "Remedy lies before the Labour Tribunal, if the petitioner claims to be a workman. Otherwise if he claims Government Employment the petition has abated, ride-amended Article 212 of Constitution Act of 1973. Dismissed."
2. After the dismissal of his revision petition the appellant served a grievance notice on the respondent on 23rd September 1974 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
The respondent rejected the grievance notice and consequently the appellant filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the learned lower Court on 29th October 1974. He contended in his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance that his dismissal was illegal, void, and wrongful inasmuch as, the Enquiry Committee did not find him guilty of the charge but the Assistant Works Manager violating the principle of natural justice awarded the punishment of dismissal from service ignoring the finding of the Enquiry Committee.
3. The respondent viz. Divisional Superintendent Workshops, Moghalpure resisted the appellant's petition and pleaded inter alia that the petition was time-barred and that the service of the petitioner being an essential service the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and further that the matter has already been adjudicated by the Civil Court and the District Judge. The petition was not competent. On merits the respondent maintained that the action taken against the appellant was quite lawful and binding.
4. Hameeda, Noor Din, Mohammad Bashir and Mohammad Hussain appellant appeared before the learned lower Court as appellant's witnesses while Akbar All Shah the representative of the respondent produced relevant documents and closed the respondent's case.
5. The learned lower Court only confined itself to the preliminary objection regarding limitation raised by the respondent and concluded that the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was grossly bared by time. No application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant and that the appellant A had offered no justification for such an inordinate delay. Consequent)) the learned Lower Court Lund that the application filed by the appellant under section 25.A was badly barred by time and hence the same was dismissed on 20th May 1975.
6. The aforesaid order of the learned Lower Court has been assailed through the present appeal.
7. As already stated the dismissal of the appellant had taken place on 17th June 1969. It is noteworthy that section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which provides redress of individual grievances before a Junior Labour Court was added for the first time by Ordinance IX of 1972 which came into force on 9th November 1972. According to subsection (6) of section 25-A ibid a dismissal not earlier than two months preceding the commencement of Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 may be challenged before the Junior Labour Court. This means that a termination which occurred on 9,h September 1972 and there After can be challenged under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and a termination which occurred prior to 9th September 1972 cannot be challenged under section 25-A ibid and for such termination a Junior Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for re-instatement.
8. In view of the above, we find that apart from the application filed by the appellant before the learned lower Court being grossly barred by time. The said application was legally misconceived and not competent.
9. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.