INAM AHMED Versus PAKISTAN STEEL

DECISION

The appellant, on migration from India, joined the Railway Department and after having resigned from there took employment with the respondent‑Mill on 21‑12‑1980 as a Wagon Inspector. He had given his date of birth with both the appointing authorities as 25‑1‑1932.

2. In November, 1990, he addressed a letter to the respondents requesting that the entry pertaining .to the date of birth be changed to 19‑11‑1937. In support of his request he had referred to certain documentary evidence, which had of late, been made available to him. The request cache to be turned down on 21‑2‑1991. After some time he despatched another letter on the same subject. The reply, dated 4‑9‑1991, was to the effect that the request could not be acceded to, as the matter stood concluded by the earlier reply.

3. After settling the preliminaries the appellant had filed a petition before the Labour Court accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2. The petition was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that it was time‑barred. This contention prevailed with the Labour Court at the time of the hearing of Injunction Application and the petition had been dismissed on that score.

4. It is not disputed that the request had been turned down on 21‑2‑1991. Obviously the petition was filed beyond the period permissible under the law. The contention of the appellant is that it has to be computed from the receipt of the second reply.

5. This contention is absolutely untenable as a fresh cause of action would not accrue by a repetition of an application at a later date. However, Mr. Zahid Hamid, learned counsel for the respondents argued that even if the later reply dated 4‑9‑1991, were to be taken into consideration, the petition would be beyond time as it exceeded the period of two and half months.

6. The worth of the petition apart, it suffers from the bar of limitation. No fault therefore can be found with the order passed by the learned Labour Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

H.B.T./2076/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.