2000 PLP 495 (PLC)

ABDUR RASHID KHAN (MEMBER). ‑‑‑This order is directed against the impugned order dated 22‑2‑1999 passed by learned member Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been serving as Loader under the respondent since 26‑10‑1970 and was dismissed from service on 17‑10‑1982. The appellant contends that his dismissal from service was on account of trade union activities and he filed petition against the respondent alleging that the order of dismissal is mala fide, illegal, discriminatory based on victimisation and unfair labour practice and prayed for acceptance of the petition. On the other hand, the respondent filed written statement and raised numeral objections such as, that the petition is hopelessly barred by time, petition is not maintainable, the order of review board was re-commendatory and, that the petitioner failed to make out case of unfair labour practice etc. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet after holding enquiry and proper chance of personal hearing was given to him, second show‑cause notice was also given to him and consequently, the appellant was dismissed from service by the competent Authority on the ground of misconduct. It is further contended that the learned Member to the Single Bench has rightly passed the order while dismissing the petition of the appellant.

3. We have heard both the learned counsel at length. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently pressed his arguments that the petitioner was removed from service through discrimination as his other co‑workers‑ have been reinstated in service as they were also recommended by the Review Board and the case of the appellant is at par with other co‑workers. He further contended that the learned Member did not appreciate the very case of the appellant and erroneously dismissed the petition of the appellant. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition was hopelessly barred by time. The appellant was dismissed from service on 17‑10‑1982 on the ground of misconduct after affording all the opportunities of his defence before the Enquiry Officer and serving show‑cause notice. The appellant has filed petition on 8‑3‑1999 after lapse. of 11 years. The appellant was kept quiet for a long period of 11 years. The Review Board was only recomendatory, the appellant has not made any case of unfair labour practice.

4. We are of the considered view, after careful examination of the record and hearing the arguments. That this petition is hopelessly time -barred. The appellant has miserably failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice and the learned member is fully justified in dismissing the petition of the appellant. As no case of unfair labour practice has been made out and the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The result is that the appeal of Karam Din filed against the PIAC is dismissed being without force. Parties shall bear their own costs. ' H.B.T./356/NIRC. Appeal dismissed.