1990 PLP 208 (SCMR)
Sheikh MUHAMMAD NASIM‑‑Petitioner' Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WAZIRABAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 208 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Sheikh MUHAMMAD NASIM‑‑Petitioner' Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WAZIRABAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 208 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 208 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 208 (SCMR) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD NASIM‑‑Petitioner' Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WAZIRABAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑10‑1985 in W.P. No.3910/S of 1984). ‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑ Petitioner did not act diligently before Labour Court and was rather indolent in pursuing his remedy‑‑‑High Court dismissed petition after making sure that there was no jurisdictional defect or even an illegality in the impugned order to call for its removal through judicial review‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by High Court in declining to condone the delay.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑The petitioner was an Octroi Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Wazirabad. Action was taken against him under the Municipal Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1963. The Administrator by his order dated 27‑1‑1980 removed him from service. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala. The appeal was dismissed being barred by time. The petitioner in the first instance moved the Punjab Labour Court No.7 under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. His grievance petition was dismissed on technical ground by order dated 20‑9‑1980. He filed a fresh grievance petition before the same Court. That too was dismissed on 18‑11‑1981.
2. On 16‑12‑1981 he filed a time‑barred appeal.
3. Having availed of all these remedies, the petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court in which he impugned the orders of the Administrator and the Deputy Commissioner dated 27‑1‑1980 and 17‑4‑1982 respectively. A learned Judge of the High Court while dealing with the Constitutional petition thoroughly examined the question of limitation. The learned Judge also considered whether the petitioner could be given concession for the time spent in pursuing his case before the wrong forum. That is why he observed that "in counting the period of limitation section 14 permits extension of time spent in prosecuting the proceedings before a wrong Court diligently. But there are indications on the record that the petitioner did not act diligently before the Labour Court and was rather indolent in pursuing his remedy".
4. The petitioner was negligent. His petition was accordingly dismissed. The learned Judge made sure that "there is no jurisdictional defect or even an illegality in the impugned order, to call for its removal through judicial review".
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was faced with the same difficulty. He raised the same contention. The result is the same which is that we are not prepared to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Lahore High Court in declining to condone the delay. The petition is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1053/S Petition dismissed