1986 PLP 51 (PLC)

(c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑Constitution petition, grant of‑‑There being no cogent grounds for grant of constitutional relief‑‑High Court refused to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction and dismissed petition in circumstances. Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioner MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.‑‑ The legality of the order, dated 24‑7‑1985, pronounced by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore has been assailed through this constitutional petition, who had accepted the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the revision petition of Muhammad Iqbal the petitioner.

2. Muhammad Iqbal worked under the respondent in the capacity of a Store Keeper at Burewala. He was the incharge of fertilizer and is alleged to have misappropriated fertilizer and seed worth Rs.76,

500. He was charge‑sheeted by his employer and after holding an inquiry, was relieved of his duties. The petitioner sent a grievance notice to his employer on 27‑11‑1979, i.e. within three months of his dismissal, which was ordered on 2‑9‑1979. Subsequently, he moved a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, Multan on 2‑12‑1979. That petition was dismissed on 25‑9‑1980 on the legal point that the grievance notice was sent by a lawyer and section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance has explicitly excluded the agency of a lawyer to serve a grievance notice to the employer.

3. The petitioner served the second grievance notice to the employer on 30‑5‑1981 and thereafter, filed another grievance petition before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan. It was adjudicated by the learned Labour Court that the charge‑sheet was not served within time. The delay in serving the second grievance notice was condoned. Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation, Multan Region, Multan preferred an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which concurred with the learned Labour Court as regards the time barred charge‑sheet but it did not find favour with the view that the delay in serving the second grievance notice was condonable and consequently, accepted the appeal of the employer and dismissed the grievance petition of the petitioner.

4. It has been contended that the second grievance notice was served just after the decision of the learned Labour Court. It is factually incorrect because the first grievance petition moved by the petitioner was decided on 25‑9‑1980 and the petitioner served the second grievance notice on 30‑5‑1981. The delay of each day is to be explained and the petitioner slept over the matter for a period of more than eight months. The learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore has rightly concluded that the delay in sending the second grievance notice was erroneously condoned.

5. It has been contended that the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore is without jurisdiction. We are unable to subscribe to this view because the Labour Court was competent to H condone the delay in serving the second grievance notice and similarly, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore could have either endorsed the view of the Labour Court or could have varied its decision. The impugned order is not ultra vires. Lastly, we find no cogent ground to grant relief to the petitioner in a constitutional petition and dismiss the same in limine. A.A.???? Petition dismissed.