1989 PLP 637 (PLC(CS))

Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Grievance petition--Limitation--Dismissal from service- partmental appeal against dismissal rejected in 1982--Appellant sent grievance ,lice on 30-5-1985--Grievance petition filed on 15-12-1985--Apart from the fact it grievance notice was time-barred, grievance petition which was to have been :d within two and a half months of service of grievance notice was alse pelessly time-barred--There being no explanation for such delay given in application for condonation of delay, Labour Court was justified in dismissing grievance petition--Appeal against impugned order of dismissal was dismissed in circumstances. Rana Fazal-ur-Rehman for Appellant. Hamid Mahmood for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th July, 1986. This is an appeal against the decision dated 11-3-1986 recorded by the armed Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed n the ground that it was time-barred.

2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed from service was of absence for more than ten days. The dismissal order is dated 15-3-1980. Departmental appeal was preferred by the appellant on 16-5-1981, copy of which is Exh. P-6. His case is that he was not informed about the fate of his departmental appeal, whereupon he sent reminder on 12-5-1985, reply to which was received, which is Exh. P-12, dated 26-5-1985. On the other hand the case of the respondent is that the factum of the rejection of appeal was conveyed to the appellant on 8-12-1982 under postal receipt, photocopy of which is Exh. P.W.3/2. The appellant contends that no information of the rejection of appeal was received by him. In reply to the reminder also it was contended that the appellant q had been duly informed about the rejection of appeal. In the presence of postal receipt the learned lover Court was justified in not accepting the oral statement of the appellant that he did not receive the intimation of the rejection of the appeal before sending the reminder. The information about the rejection was sent on 21-10-1982 but the grievance notice was sent and the grievance petition brought in 1985. Even if it be said for the sake of argument that the appellant did not receive any intimation of the rejection of appeal in 1982, the grievance petition, was hopelessly time-barred, from the date of service of grievance notice, which was sent on 30-5-1985, copy of which is Exh. PAL Within two and a half months of the service of grievance notice, the grievance petition could be brought A but it was brought on 15-12-1985 as is clear from the note of presentation made by the Court on the petition. There is absolutely no explanation for this delay given in the application for condonation of delay. In these circumstances the,, learned lower Court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. AA./636/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.