1989 PLP 321 (PLC)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 26‑4‑1988 passed in Appeal No. KAR‑40 of 1986 filed by the petitioner against the order of Sindh Labour Court No. 1, Karachi. The facts of the case are as follows:‑ The petitioner was serving as a Watchman with respondent No.1. He was dismissed from service on 27‑I1‑1983 after holding a departmental enquiry. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his dismissal from service before the Chairman of respondent No.1, which was rejected on 9‑2‑1984. Thereafter, petitioner instead of approaching the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. filed a second appeal before the Federal Minister which; it is said, is still pending. Notwithstanding the pendency of that appeal before the Federal Minister, the petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O. before the Labour Court on 22‑12‑1984. The grievance petition of the petitioner was dismissed as time‑barred against which he preferred‑ an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed on the ground that the grievance petition filed by the petitioner was not within time. Mr. Ghulam Ghous, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned Tribunal below was arbitrary as in a similar case where the grievance petition was time‑barred the Labour Court allowed reinstatement of worker and the appeal preferred against such order has been dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The facts of the case which are relied upon by the learned counsel are stated in the petition and it is alleged that another worker Syed Sharif Hussain Shah who was also dismissed had filed a civil suit seeking declaration against the order of dismissal before the civil Court which was decreed. The said Syed Sharaf Hussain Shah armed with the decree of the civil Court filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. and on the basis of the decree of the civil Court the Labour Court, ordered his reinstatement in the service. It was against that order, it is alleged that the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed. It is, therefore, quite clear that the case of Syed Sharif Hussain Shah was on a different footing as in that case rights of the parties were adjudicated upon by the civil Court and the decree was passed in favour of dismissed employee. In the present case the grievance petition has been dismissed by the Labour Court and this order has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the grievance petition preferred by the petitioner before the Labour Court was beyond time. The order passed by the Labour Court as well as by the Labour Appellate Tribunal holding that the grievance petition was not within time is neither in excess of jurisdiction nor suffers from any lack of jurisdiction. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel or the petitioner that the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal have acted in a discriminatory manner in allowing reinstatement of another worker in‑ the same transaction. We have already pointed out that the case of the other worker relied upon by the petitioner was on different footing, as in that case the rights of the parties were already adjudicated upon and determined in proceedings before a competent Court of law. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. AA./N‑143/K Petition dismissed.