1989 PLP 787 (PLC)

Shaikh Fazal Din for Appellant. Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1988. This is an appeal against the order of Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 11‑8‑1988, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents had fixed his seniority in the relevant grade from 15‑4‑1960, though he was entitled to his seniority from 3‑7‑1954. According to the appellant he had been making representations from time to time, but, to no avail. The final representation made by him was dated 14‑10‑1986, which was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 21‑1‑1987. After serving grievance notice to the respondents, the appellant filed his grievance petition. 3. 1 have heard Mr. Fazal Din for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, Advocate for the respondents.

4. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition mainly on the ground that it was time‑barred. The contention of Mr. Fazal Din is that the right of filing grievance petition arose to the appellant after receipt of reply on 21‑1‑1987. Mr. Shabbir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondents had contended that even if the contention of the appellant, that he had been making representations from time to time is taken to be correct, though it is not admitted by the respondents, still the grievance petition was barred by time. It is submitted that first representation in that case would be considered as a grievance notice under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a case reported in 1981 P L C at page

915. If this be so, then, the grievance petition would not be within time as specified under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. On the other hand, Mr. Sh. Fazal Din contends that the right accrued to appellant only after the receipt of the reply to his appeal.

5. Admittedly, under the Railway Rules the appeal has to he filed within two months of the impugned order. The impugned order was passed when the seniority was fixed in 1964, of which appellant came to know for the first time, according to Mr. Sh. Fazal Din, on 23‑6‑1975. If this date is taken as the date of impugned order then also the representation/appeal made in 1986 would be beyond the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Mr. Fazal Din the learned representative for the appellant has relied upon P L D 1964 S C 520, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held, that in the case of dismissal of Government servant, the period of limitation for a declaratory suit, contesting order of dismissal, was to be reckoned under Article 120, Limitation Act from the time when the right to sue accrues. Such right was held to have deemed to accrue on the date of the first order of dismissal or on the date of order of appellate authority confirming the first order. Article 120 Limitation Act would not be applicable to the present case as the period of limitation is specifically fixed under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. The appeal would also be an appeal only if preferred within time. The representation preferred after 10 years of the order cannot be considered as an appeal under the Rules to give fresh cause of action to the appellant.

6. In view of the admitted position, the grievance petition of the appellant was hopelessly time‑barred and as such it has been rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court on that ground. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1365/Lb. S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.