2018 PLP 242 (PLC)

SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, CHAIRMAN.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.IX, Multan whereby the grievance petition made by the respondent was accepted.

2. The respondent Muhammad Arif, who served with the appellant as Chowkidar/Baildar since 01.03.2007 and whose services were terminated by a verbal order dated 01.07.2012 made a grievance petition under section of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. IX, Multan for his reinstatement in service.

3. The grievance petition was contested by the respondent/ appellant and the learned trial court after recording the evidence, hearing the parties accepted the grievance petition vide impugned judgment dated 24.11.2015, hence the present appeal.

4. The learned Law Officer representing the appellant has contended that admittedly the services of the respondent were terminated on 01.07.2012. He sent grievance notice Ex.P.34 on 07.08.2012 whereas the grievance petition was made on 14.11.2012 which was hopelessly time barred but the learned trial court has not looked into this aspect of the matter; that subsections (2) and (6) of section 33 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, the grievance petition must have been made within 60 days after the reply of the employer but the grievance petition has been filed on 14.11.2012 which is barred by limitation. Admittedly, no such objection was raised by the appellant/respondent but the mandatory provisions of the Section 3 of the Limitation Act are to be looked into by the court itself. Reliance has been placed on the judgment cited as Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. The Secretary, Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development and another (2006 SCMR 783).

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the objection regarding the limitation was not raised in the written reply and even in the memorandum of appeal, therefore, the appellant are estopped to raise the said objection at this stage. The respondent who had attained the status of a permanent workman was removed from the service orally without any inquiry, therefore, he has been rightly reinstated in service and appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on judgments cited as 2015 PLC 271, 1994 PLC (C.S) 305, 1980 SCMR 722, 1982 CLC 81 2016 PLC 147 and PLD 2011 SC 151.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and has perused the available records.

7. Admittedly, the grievance notice Ex.P.34 was sent by the respondent on 07.08.2012 as is apparent from the postal receipt Ex.P.35 and grievance petition has been made on 14.11.2012. The respondent had to wait for 15 days for the result of the grievance notice and its reply, thereafter he was supposed to make the grievance petition within 60 days. lt has been held by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. The Secretary, Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development and another (2006 PSC, 1664) that it is the duty of the court to determine the question of limitation irrespective of the fact whether such plea was raised or not and party approaching the court of competent jurisdiction for redress of his grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side. In the instant case the grievance petition has been made after lapse of prescribed period of limitation, therefore, the same was barred by limitation. The case law produced by the learned counsel for the respondent is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. According to above discussion, the grievance petition was barred by limitation but the learned trial court has not looked into this aspect of the case and wrongly accepted the grievance petition. The impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is set-aside. In consequence the grievance petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. File be consigned to the records room after due completion. The trial court's records be sent back immediately. MQ/13-PLT Appeal allowe