1993 PLP 877 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 9th December, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 6‑2‑1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman since 22‑1‑1976 and on 20‑3‑1984, he was served with a charge‑sheet/show‑cause notice in English and despite his request, he was not provided its Urdu translation which was followed by a domestic enquiry in which it was alleged that on some written papers, his signatures were taken and his service were dismissed, vide letter, dated 24‑9‑1984. Thereafter, the appellant claimed to have submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent‑management resisted the petition on the grounds that firstly, it was barred by limitation secondly, that no grievance notice was served upon the respondent‑establishment and thirdly, that he was dismissed from service in accordance with the provisions of Law. Therefore, it was claimed that the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant has failed to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing his grievance petition before that learned Labour Court, under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,1969, within the mandatory period, hence, I hold the same as time‑barred and not maintainable under the Law. It is also an admitted position that the appellant in his grievance notice did not make any adverse remarks either against the impartiality of the enquiry officer or the manner is which he conducted the enquiry and it is a well‑settled principle of Law that a ground, not taken in the grievance notice, cannot be allowed to be raised subsequently. Enquiry proceedings are on record as Exh. A/2 and each page thereof bears the signatures of the appellant. 1, therefore, hold that the appellant was afforded' full and fair opportunity of defending himself in an independent and impartial' domestic enquiry conducted in accordance with the provisions of Law and principles of natural justice. In view of this factual and legal position on record, I would hold that the appellant has no case and as such, the impugned order needs not to be interfered with.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would, therefore, dismiss the present appeal. A.E./1160/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.