1990 PLP 553 (PLC)

Muhammad Humayoon for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal Filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10‑8‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.V at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, of the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been working as Technician in he respondent organization and in view of the settlement, dated 12‑9‑1977, he was entitled to be placed in N.P.S.11 with effect from 1‑3‑1972 and that for this pay scale, he used to make representations to the respondent‑establishment without any result. However, as per claim of the appellant, on 18‑4‑1987 he served a grievance notice and in case of non‑receipt of the reply, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court. .

3. The respondent, instead of resisting the petition on facts, had submitted preliminary legal objections to the effect that the appellant had first sent grievance notice on 23‑5‑1978, which was rejected on 30‑5‑1978 and again on 5‑4‑1986, he re‑submitted the same grievance which was also rejected by them on 26‑10‑1986 and even after rejection of this grievance notice also the appellant did not approach to the Labour Court. Respondent further claimed that once again, the appellant sent an application on 18‑4‑1987 to them purporting to be a grievance notice followed by the present hopelessly time‑barred grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the present grievance petition of the appellant be dismissed solely on the ground of its being hopelessly time‑barred.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard the appellant in person, while, on the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted his arguments. I have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. The appellant has contended that as the respondents were denying the benefits as accrued to him by virtue of a settlement, dated 12‑9‑1977, therefore, the recurring cause of action was very well available to him, therefore, the present grievance petition is well within time and hence, maintainable. I see no force in the pleadings of the appellant. It is an admitted position that at first, the appellant has served his grievance notice on 30‑5‑1978 which was rejected by the respondents and at that time, the settlement, dated 12‑9‑1977 was not in existence. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant had no recurring cause of action, so, he was also not entitled to maintain hopelessly time‑barred grievance petition. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment had argued that the appellant had based his case on a settlement, dated 12‑9‑1977 which was no more in existence at the relevant time and further that firstly, the appellant had submitted his grievance notice on 30‑5‑1978 and secondly, on 26‑10‑1986, and after both these dates, the appellant had not submitted his grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court within the respective stipulated time. Mr. Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that under these circumstances the petition of the appellant was not maintainable, therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the petition. I sec much force in the pleadings of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent‑establishment and would, therefore, maintain the impugned order.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1136/Lb.S ?????????? Appeal dismissed.