2004 PLP 155 (PLC)

Ss.25-A & 37(3)

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5

Grievance petition

Limitation

Delay, condonation of

Grievance notice and grievance petition against termination of service was filed by employee after more than two years from order terminating his services and he also filed application for condonation of delay alongwith grievance petition under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Grievance petition filed by employee was dismissed being barred by time

Employee having not been able to justify each and every day of delay of more than two years in giving grievance notice and filing grievance petition order of Labour Court in dismissing grievance petition on ground of limitation was in accordance with law. Mehmood Rehman v. The President National Bank of Pakistan and another 1996 PLC 571 ref. M.A. Azmati for Appellant. S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents.

1. In view of the order to be passed hereinafter, this application is dismissed as infructuaus.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the services of Mrs. Qamar Jahan (appellant) who was employed with United Liner Agencies of Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) were terminated on 27-10-1999 where after she sent a grievance notice dated 3-4-2002 to respondent for her reinstatement which was declined. On or about 30-4-2002 she filed Grievance Petition No. 118 of 2002 in the Labour Court No. V at Karachi for her reinstatement. Along with the Petition one filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the petition. On the basis of preliminary objection raised by the respondent, the learned Labour Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the petition was barred by time and dismissed it by order dated 27-8-2002 on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved by the above order, Mrs. Qamar Jahan filed an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which on transfer has come to this Court. Mr. Azmati, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Mrs. Qamar Jahan was making efforts for her reinstatement with various authorities e.g. Army Monitoring Cell and the Provincial Labour Department etc. the proof of which was filed along with the application for condonation of delay which was not considered by the Labour Court. He vehemently contended that it was a case of extreme handship as the services of Mrs. Qamar Jahan had been terminated on account of her union activities which fact should have been considered by the Labour Court. He added that in a similar situation the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal had remanded the case to the Labour Court to enable the workman to produce additional evidence on the issue of limitation Mehmood Rehman v. The Pakistan National Bank of Pakistan and another 1996 PLC 571 and prayed that the High Court in the instant case should do the same. The facts in the said case are very different from the present one and further in the cited case the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case considered it proper to remand it for additional evidence. In the instant case after going through the record. I do not think that remanding the case for additional evidence would make any difference. It cannot be disputed that under section 5 of the Limitation Act, if a person who files an application or an appeal after the period of limitation he has to explain each and every day of delay. Mr. Azmati referred to several documents filed with the appeal but none of them are helpful to the appellant as she had been pursuing her remedy before forums which had no jurisdiction or competency under any law to grant her any relief. Additionally, she has not been able to justify each and every day of delay of over two years and six months in giving the grievance notice to respondent No.1 which is a requirement of section 5 of the Limitation Act. The order of the Labour Court in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation is in accordance with law. This appeal has no merit an is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1/K.L.T. Appeal dismissed.