MD. FALIK ALI vs CHHATTAK CEMENT FACTORY, EPIDC, SYLHET

ORDER

1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25 of the Standing Orders Act by the petitioner for his, re-instatement in service alleging that he has been illegally discharged without proper enquiry on the allegation levelled against him. 2nd party on the other hand, maintains that there was a proper enquiry on the charges against him and the petitioner having been found guilty of misconduct has been dis--charged.

2. Before entering into merit, I like to see if the application is in time. It appears that the petitioner submitted grievance petition by- his letter, dated 9-12-1969. A reply to that was received by the petitioner on 22-12-1969. That is the date given by the petitioner under his signature on the Acknowledg--ment Receipt. There seems td be postal seal, dated 23-12-1969. Even then the petitioner is not coming before Court within 30 days from the data of decision on his grievance petition, the present Application having been filed on 23-1-1970 the application being barred by limitation we are not in a position to look into the merit of the cast. It appears that there was a sort of enquiry and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. Mr. Meerza has opined that the case is barred by limitation. Mr. Sabur advises for re-instatement. . Any way I find the case tarred by limitation. Hence, ORDERED That the application be rejected as time-barred