2011 PLC 184 (PLP)

ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.

Haji Hafizullah, appellant, who was petitioner in a petition under section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, before Labour Court, Peshawar, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-3-2010, closing his evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and holding his Grievance Petition to be barred by time, has questioned the same through the instant appeal before this Tribunal.

2. Facts precisely stated are that appellant, who was working as MT Driver since 1985 on ad hoc basis and on regular basis since 1989 with the respondents, was terminated from service on the ground of his involvement in a smuggling case, which order had initially been assailed by him before the Federal Services Tribunal in view of the addition of section 2-A to the Federal Services Tribunals Act, 1973, empowering the said Tribunal to take cognizance of the cases of the corporation employees, but during pendency of his appeal, the said provision of law was struck down by the honourable. Apex Court in the famous case commonly known as Mubeen-us-Salam case, reported as PLD 2006 SC 602 and where it was held that appeals pending before the Federal Service Tribunal would stand abated and that the aggrieved persons may approach the proper forum within ninety days from the said abatement.??????????

3. Appellant's appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, as per the facts given by the learned counsel, stood abated vide order dated 7-7-2006, but then without taking care of the time fixed by the honourable apex court in the aforesaid judgment, he went into slumber and for the first time served his, Grievance Notice on the employer on 4-12-2006, whereafter filed his Grievance Petition before the Labour Court on 14-1-2010. Along with his Grievance Petition under section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, challenging the order dated 2-11-1999, terminating his services, no application for condonation of delay was filed and thus Presiding 'Officer of the Labour Court through his impugned order dismissed his Grievance Petition, holding the same to be barred by time, which had earlier too been dismissed for non-prosecution on 2-12-2009, but later on, on appellant's application restored.

4. Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, requires a worker to bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any Award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent, within one month of the date of which cause of such grievance arises and under subsection (2) thereof, the employer is required to communicate his decision in writing to the worker within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice. Under proviso to subsection (3) thereof, the worker has to take the matter to the Labour Court within two months from the date of communication of the employer or as the case may be from the expiry of the period specified in subsection (2).

5. In the instant case, as stated above not only that the grievance was not brought to the Labour Court within the stipulated period against the original order but even after the abatement of his appeal, it was agitated with considerable delay and no reason whatsoever has been put forth for such delay.

6. The Labour Court, seized of the Grievance Petition, was perfectly justified to dismiss the Grievance Petition of the appellant being hopelessly barred by time and no illegality or irregularity having been found therein, the instant appeal is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./42/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismisse