1972 PLP 274 (PLC)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD AMIR AKBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑This application was filed on 26‑3‑1971 by the petitioner for re‑instatement and other benefits against the order of his dismissal dated 13‑2‑1970 under Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance‑of 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). Besides other objections, a preliminary objection has been taken that the petition is time‑barred as it was filed more than 60 days after the grievance notice was received by the respondent. The parties led their evidence. From the evidence placed on record, the facts as they emerged out are that the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 10‑1‑1970. He sent a grievance notice to the respon dent on 17‑1‑1970 which was served on the respondents on 21-1‑1970 according to a subsequent representation made by the petitioner to the respondent (Exh. R‑13). The petition was" filed on 26‑3‑1970, more than 60 days after the service of the grievance notice on the respondent. It is also proved on record that the respondent did not make a reply to the grievance notice. According to the provisions of Standing Order No. 18(6), the petition should have been filed within 60 days of the service of the grievance nonce on the respondent. In view of the provisions of section 3 read with section 49 of the Limitation Act. the petition has got to be dismissed as time‑barred. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present petition is to be treated as a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 because the Labour Court is constituted under that Ordinance. Even if it is admitted to be correct for the sake of argument, the case of the petitioner will not improve because the right which the petitioner now wants to enforce is available to him under Standing Order No.

18. We have held in Petition No. 39/71 Muhammad Farooq v. Chairman, P. R. T. C., Lahore, that for obtaining a relief under the Ordinance by way of a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, a workman has to comply with the provisions of Standing Order No.

18. In the present case as the petitioner has filed the present petition after 60 day of the service of the grievance notice on the respondent, he has failed to comply with the provisions of Standing Order 18 of the Ordinance and, as such, is not entitled to any relief under that Ordinance. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed a time‑barred. The result of the above discussions is that we dismiss the petition as time‑barred and leave the parties to bear their own costs.