2011 PLC 161 (PLP)

ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Labour Appeals Nos.29 to 43 of 2010, as common question of facts and law in all these appeals are involved.

2. Bashir Muhammad and others appellants, in their respective appeals under section 54(3), Industrial Relations Act, 2008, are aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 24-2-2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Peshawar, who proceeded to dismiss their respective Grievance Petitions under section 46 of IRO 2002, have questioned the same through their respective appeals, referred to above, before this Tribunal.

3. Facts, precisely stated, are that the appellants in all these appeals through their respective Grievance petitions approached the Labour Court, Peshawar, for allowing them 55% maintenance allowance, over time allowance and mileage allowance from the date of performance of duties as being paid to other Air Conditioned Coach Attendants/EEXR with such other relief as may be deemed fit. While making such claim, they alleged that they are performing their duties as Air Conditioned Coach Attendants/EEXR/QEEXR since long and have also undergone the requisite training in that respect. The Labour Court after recording evidence of the parties, as they wished to adduce, through its impugned consolidated judgment dated 24-2-2010, dismissed all the Grievance Petitions, mainly on the ground of limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that many similarly placed employees of the respondent Railways have been allowed such allowances, through various judgments of different courts and thus in view of the settled law that if a question of law and fact is decided and finally adjudicated upon, then irrespective of the fact that similarly placed other employees who have not opted to enter into litigation would also be entitled to alike treatment. To substantiate his this submission he placed reliance on the cases of Hameed Akhar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185; Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others 2005 SCMR 499; Government of Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others v. Sameena Parveen and others 2009 SCMR 1; State Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mst. Mumtaz Sultana and others 2010 SCMR 61 and Sadaqat Ali Khan through L.Rs. and others v. Collector Land Acquisition and others PLD 2010 SC

878. Learned counsel then referred to a judgment, dated 5-4-2010, passed by this Tribunal in Labour Appeals Nos.76 to 90 of 2008, where this Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by Pakistan Railways, the respondents in the present appeals maintained the judgment and order passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar, allowing the allowances in question to the respondents of the said appeals. It was also argued that the judgment aforestated passed by this Tribunal was questioned by the present respondents before Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Writ Petition Nos. 3093 to 3107 of 2010 and a Division Bench of the said court seized of the said writ petitions, vide its common judgment dated 7-9-2010 dismissed all such writ petitions in limine, thus upholding the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 5-4-2010. Learned counsel while relying on the said judgments, then contended that no technicality whatsoever can come in the way of giving the same relief to the present appellants and that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has erred in non- suiting the present appellants, while simultaneously petitions for implementation of the judgment passed in favour of other employees and referred to above, were fixed before the said court and notice of which was not taken by the Labour Court /while non-suiting the present appellants mainly on the question of limitation. As against that, learned counsel for the respondents Railways argued that the principle of law laid down in the earlier judgment of this Tribunal and confirmed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is not applicable to the cases of the present appellants, who had been sleeping over their rights and law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. Learned counsel further addressed his extensive arguments in a bid to persuade this Tribunal to change its view against the one held in the judgment dated 5-4-2010 and confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court through its judgment dated 7-9-2010. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Though it is a very old principle of law consistently settled by the judgments of the apex court that a question of law once decided, then all similarly placed persons are to be treated alike, notwithstanding the fact that they had not indulged into litigation. In the case of Sadaqat Ali Khan through L.Rs. and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition and others PLD 2010 SC 878 a larger bench comprising of six honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have settled the dust once for all and paras 15, 16 (pages 894-895, and pars-19 (page 896) of the said report deal extensively with such a situation, which are reproduced verbatim:- "(15) What is discernable from the above quoted judgments and others is that the basic object behind establishment of Courts in a society was never just to administer law but was, in fact to dispense justice. The ultimate goal sought to be achieved by the Courts was thus to do complete justice between the parties and to ensure that the rights were delivered to those to whom they belonged and no hurdles were ever considered strong enough to detract the Courts from reaching the said end. Incorporation of provisions such as section 151, C.P.C.; section 561-A in the Cr.P.C. revisional powers of wide amplitude exercisable even suo motu under section 115 of the C.P.C. and section 439 of the Cr.P.C.; various provisions of the like contained in Order XLI, rule 4 and Order XLI, rule 33 of C P.C.; the provisions of Order XXXIII, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules of 1980; suo motu powers exercisable under .Article 184(3) of the Constitution and previsions of Article 187 of the Constitution, are some of the examples which could be quoted as having been made available to the Courts at all levels to surmount any impediments which a Court might confront in the path of doing complete Justice. With respect to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, it may also be added that the same, are of a rather peculiar nature as in the ultimate analysis what is required to be determined under the said Act is the value of the acquired land. Once the same stands resolved then the Acquiring Authorities become repositories of the said value of land as a trust for the ones who own the same which authorities are then obligated to identity the said persons and to discharge the said trust by paying the same to them. (16) And what is further deducible from the long line of judgments, some of which have been quoted above, is that once a judicial determination, be it of a point of fact or of a point of law, has been made and if such a determination covers not only the ones litigating before the Courts but some others also, then the dictates of justice would command that the benefits accruing from such a determination should not be restricted only to the litigating parties but should be extended even to those who had not indulged in litigation unless there were some extra-ordinary un-exceptionable reasons to the contrary and that all powers, including the powers inherent in the Courts be invoked for the purpose. This would not only ensure justice for all but would also have the effect of eliminating un-necessary litigation. And respectfully following these judgments, we endorse the views expressed therein. (17) .. (18) .. (19) We are also shocked and pained at the conduct of the governmental authorities who were adamant in denying to the present appellants what rightfully belonged to them and this these authorities were doing by seeking shelter under mere technicalities of law. They failed to realize that a Government and its various departments and agencies enjoyed a parental status vis-a-vis the subjects and it never behoved a Government or its agents to deny to the subjects what stood judicially determined to be belonging to them. The law of Limitation may be an impediment, though surmountable, in the way of a court to grant a deserved relief but it would never be a bar in the way of the repository of a trust to discharge his obligations. A person would never qualify as a gentleman if he was to refuse to re-pay a debt only because he had managed to hold on to the same for more than three years. Needless to say that a government is expected to be a gentleman may, the noblest person in a State. Once, the price of an area of land had been finally and judicially determined, then it is distressing and agonizing to find the Government, saying brazenly to its subjects and its wards that yes the Court has found you entitled to a given amount of compensation but I shall not pay it to you because you did not disgrace me by dragging me to the Courts of law. This is, to say the least not a conduct befitting a gentle and a noble man. The appellants before us appear to be petty landowners owning small land-holdings and enrichment of the Governmental agencies at the cost of such like poor subjects could never be sold to be civilized, moral or an ethical conduct." (Emphasis supplied) Similarly in the case of State Bank of Pakistan 2010 SCMR 61 it was held as under: "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Art. 141

Whether they are parties or not in litigation

Question of

Issue about the employees not being party to the litigation before Supreme Court, loses significance as the Bank itself was party who was obliged to follow and implement the judgment in letter and spirit, to one and all. Principle of laches

It will be unjust, if the employees were to be knocked out on the principle of Laches in approaching the High Court or for availing some other remedy as just and fair order has been made by the High Court

It will advance the cherished goal of justice for all, similarly situated

Leave refused". In this view of the matter, the Labour Court while dismissing the Grievance Petitions of the appellants in all these appeals, appears to have fallen into an error of law and thus, while seeking guidance from the law so settled by the august apex court, all the appeals aforestated are allowed and their Grievance petitions before the Labour Court are accepted in terms thereof leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./416/P Appeal allowed.