GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court, Sukkur, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.,1969. It arose in the following circumstances.

2. The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Foreman on contract, in the Transportation Workshop of Shah Nawaz Bhutto Sugar Mills, Naudero, for eight weeks only, on 20‑10‑1984. With breaks he was offered the same employment for limited periods. The last of these assignment was on 23‑6‑1987 for a period of one year. The letter ends on the following note:

"The nature of his employment is purely temporary and terminable without any notice during this period, if his work is not found to be satisfactory:"

He was relieved of his job at the end of the stipulated period verbally, i.e. on 1‑6‑1988. He had, thereupon, made representation to various authorities in the country. It appears that there was a letter from the Ministry of Production for the re‑employment of certain persons; the appellant being one of them. The re‑employment however eluded him, though according to his version the others were luckier.

3. He, therefore, served a grievance notice after a lapse of 17 months on 13‑11‑1989. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition on the short . ground that it was barred by time.

4. The contention of Mr. Manzar Alam that the appellant had a fresh grievance accruing, when the recommendation of authorities was not implemented by the respondents, is devoid of any merit. Under the scheme of section 25‑A, I.R.O. the cause of such grievance had arisen on 1‑6‑1988 and redress had to be sought within a period of five and a half month. Patently the delay of 17 months had not been explained and this is enough to dispose of the appeal.

5. In the result I will affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2195/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.