1995 PLP 287 (PLC)

Kh. Muhammad Azim for Petitioners. Muhammad Aslam Khan Butter for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1994. The petitioners through this Constitutional petition have taken exception to the judgments dated 11‑11‑1982 and 5‑3‑1984 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala and the judgment dated 30‑10‑1984 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. Facts briefly narrated are that respondent Abbasullah, a Meter Reader, was dismissed from service on 20‑4‑1982 on the ground of recording a bogus meter reading entry. He challenged the action of his dismissal under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No. 7 on the ground that he had been condemned unheard for an alleged single bogus reading/recording without holding any enquiry at all. The petitioners contested the issue and the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, through its judgment dated 11‑11‑1982 set aside the dismissal order. The petitioner filed a review petition which was dismissed on 5‑4‑1984 as being not competent. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore which was dismissed on 30‑10‑1984 on the ground of limitation. Hence this Constitutional petition. The only point advanced by the petitioners is that in view of section 17(1‑B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 the respondent being a civil servant in respect of his terms and conditions, the exclusive jurisdiction would vest in the Federal Service Tribunal. The Labour Court as such would have no jurisdiction whatsoever under the law to adjudicate upon this issue. I have considered the contentions. It is not denied that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted against the respondent qua the defalcation made by him in the meter reading. I have also noticed that the petitioners' appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was hopelessly time‑barred. The impugned order of setting aside dismissal order was passed on 11‑11‑1982. Section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, section 37, subsection (3) provides as under:‑‑ "Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) or a decision given under section 25‑A or section 34 or a sentence passed under clause (c) of subsection (5) of section 3. may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the delivery or passing thereof and the decision of the Tribunal in such appeal shall be final." The petitioner instead of approaching the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal filed a review application which was dismissed as being not competent/maintainable on 5‑3‑1984. The appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was filed after more than one year and a few months which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal simply on the ground of limitation on 30‑10‑1984. There is no cavil with the proposition that the question of jurisdiction can be raised before this forum. However, in the circumstances of this case, there being only a single defalcation and that too was not inquired into as such I do not want to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in this matter of dismissing the appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation. Even otherwise by exercising the discretion the order dated 20‑4‑1982 which was totally void as the same was passed without holding any enquiry, would be resurrected at a time when the respondent is at the verge of his retirement. In this background although I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the jurisdiction qua the terms and conditions of WAPDA employee in view of section 17(1‑B) of the WAPDA Act exclusively vest in the Service Tribunal but in the facts of this case keeping in view that the dismissal order was passed without holding any enquiry for an alleged single defalcation and the appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was hopelessly time‑barred as such I dismiss this writ petition leaving the parties to bear their j own costs. A.A./W‑61/L Petition dismissed.