1998 PLP 384 (PLC)

S. 25-A

Grievance petition

Maintainability

Employee who was dismissed from service, had filed his grievance petition against such dismissal with a delay of more than seven years

Delay in filing grievance petition proved to be palpable and employee failed to explain each and every day of such delay

Grievance petition, which was hopelessly barred by law of limitation, was rightly dismissed, in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant. Umar Alvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1997. By a judgment announced on 21-3-1994, the learned Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi dismissed the grievance petition of Muhammad Saee, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, respondent, being the Factory Manager/General Manager, Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited, Jhelum. Same are the parties in the appeal, preferred before this forum by Muhammad Saee, under section 37(3) ibid.

2. Muhammad Saee was charge-sheeted on 2-3-1986 and was dismissed from service on 30-4-1986. He sought his reinstatement in service, with back benefits; but for the purpose he filed the grievance petition on 8-8-1993, that is, with a delay of more than seven years. He states that he had contacted the respondent for his reinstatement on 1-6-1993, but his request had been declined on 9-7-1993. This is, however, only an oral assertion. He was supposed to have established contact in writing. He, however, failed to do so, and cannot be believed on that count.

3. Muhammad Saee has taker up plea of sickness for coming to the Court with that much delay. He says, he had soon fallen ill, after his removal from service, and had immediately on recovery made a request to the respondent for his reinstatement in service, and that after refusal, on the part of the respondent, he had served him with a grievance notice. He has produced a medical certificate, Exh.P-1, issued by one Dr. Zafar Iqbal, on 9-7-1993, the date when he issued the grievance notice. The said doctor has, however, not been examined as a witness, and it is so well known that it is so easy to procure a medical certificate, of the kind, front any medical practitioner, It has rightly been observed by the learned lower Court that the employee having participated in the inquiry, the final action against him cannot be said to have been taken on his back, or to his ignorance; and in so far as the request for condonation of delay in filing the grievance petition is concerned, it cannot be acceded to, as the delay is palpable, and the aggrieved person has not endeavoured to explain each and every day of delay. Actually, the move appears to be in the nature of an afterthought, and the employee's version is neither plausible, nor acceptable. His evidence was found to be not convincing and confidence-inspiring, and the grievance petition was dismissed as being hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. The finding recorded to that effect by the learned Labour Court is unexceptionable, and the appeal having no merit, is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./917/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.