RIAZ AHMAD Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 6‑8‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A I. R.O., 1969.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent Railways and as he was aggrieved by an office order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer Pakistan Railways, Karachi, dated 12‑6‑1980, assigning seniority to one Muhammad Ismail, therefore, he submitted his grievance petition on 10‑2‑1986 with the prayer that the appellant be assigned correct seniority and resultant promotion as Charge man in RNSP‑12 which was illegally allowed to Muhammad Ismail by way of wrong fixation of seniority.

3.The respondent Railways resisted the petition mainly on the legal objection that if any cause of action was accrued to the appellant in the year 1980, he should have immediately invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, therefore, the present petition filed by the appellant in the year 1986 without explaining day‑to‑day delay was hopelessly time‑barred, so it is liable to be dismissed. The second contention of the respondent Railways was that as the promotion could not be claimed as a matter of right, therefore the appellant had no right guaranteed or secured to him under any Law, Settlement or Award, so, on this point also, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.

4.Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

5.I have heard Mr. M. A. Hassan Malik, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. M. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Counsel for the respondent Railways and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Advocate for Railways, has submitted that the appellant had never mentioned that the letters, Annexures C/1, C/2 and C/3, alleged to the departmental appeals, dated 5‑8‑1980, 3‑10‑1980 and 23‑10‑1985 in application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay coming to the Labour Court. I have carefully examined these alleged documents and the relevant application. I am of the view that these documents were subsequently prepared as an afterthought only to cover the inordinate delay. Further more, the application of the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act was not accompanied with an affidavit explaining day‑to‑day reasons for delay, therefore, in the eyes of Law it was also not maintainable. This is further supported by the fact that the appellant had also miserably failed to bring on record a postal receipt of A/D receipt of A any of the above representation to justify his contention. In view of the above facts circumstances and the admitted legal position, I would hold that the grievance petition was hopelessly time‑barred and the appellant had failed to establish the fact that he was in touch with respondent Railways with regard to his grievance. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant hopelessly time‑barred thus not maintainable.

6.For the reasons stated by me above, I see as reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

M.Y.H./1002/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.