1984 PLC(CS) 1547

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 20th of December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 9, Multan. The facts are that Abdul Ghafoor and Niaz Ahmed. T. Es. were promoted as S. T. Es. ignoring the respondent. The seniority of the respondent is admitted. The case of the appellant was that he was not informed about the date of interview to be held before the selection committee. According to Exh. P. 2, headquarter of the respondent was at Sahiwal from 1 st April, 1979 to 15th April, 1979. The date of interview according to Exh. R‑1 was 14 th April, 1979. The endorsements appearing on Exh. R. 1 do not show that any copy of Exh. R. 1 was sent at the Headquarters at Sahiwal. It is, thus, apparent that the date of interview was not intimated to the respondent. Further, the ground on which the petition of the respondent fails is that the Grievance Notice and Grievance Petition were time‑barred. The date of the Grievance Notice: is 20th of January, 1980 whereas the intimation that the selection committee had found the respondent as unfit for pro motion was sent to the respondent according to Exh, P. 4 on 18th August, 1979. This is not the case of the respondent that he had brought any departmental appeal. So, cause of grievance arose to the respondent on 18th August, 1979. Therefore, the Grievance Notice dated 20th January, 1980 was time‑barred. Objection in this respect was raised by the appellant in the written statement but the learned Lower Court did not touch and decide this point.

2. The respondent has pointed out that in the memo. of appeal order of reinstatement has been challenged whereas he was never dismissed nor he challenged any order of dismissal. As a matter of fact in the memo. of appeal the order of reinstatement has been through inadvertance challenged. Since in the appeal the order of lower Court, dated 20th December, 1981 has been challenged whereby the respondent was directed to be promoted to the post of S. T. E. from the date he was ignored. It makes no difference that in the body of appeal order of reinstatement was challenged. If some other order has been challenged, of course, the appeal would have been con sidered as incompetent.

3. As the Grievance Notice was time‑barred, the grievance petition w too time‑barred and, thus, was incompetent. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, dated 20th December, 198 dismiss the grievance petition.

M. I.

Appeal accepted.