1981 PLP 368 (PLC)

Iqbal Afridi and Masood Shahreyar for Appellant. Chaudhry Abdul Rasheed for Respondent. Date of hearing : 29th April, 1980. This appeal is directed against a decision, given on 26‑2‑1980, condoning the delay in, the filing of his grievance petition by the respondent‑workman.

2. The circumstances in which this appeal has been filed, shortly stated, are that the respondent, who was employed as a Junior Clerk, was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 22‑6‑1976, on the charges of irregular attend ance and absence without leave. The respondent‑workman challenged the action taken against him by way of a grievance petition before the learned IVth Labour Court, which allowed the same, vide. its detailed order, dated 6‑4‑1977. On appeal by the appellant‑Company, this Tribunal, by its consolidated: order, dated 2‑8‑1977, remanded the case to the learned Labour Court with the following directions :‑ "In the circumstances I allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Labour Courts and remand the cases to the Labour Courts concerned for, disposal of the cases on the basis of their finding with regard to the question of the condonation of delay. The aggrieved parties shall be entitled to file appeals raising all the questions on facts 1s well as law including the question of the condo nation of delay."

3. A bare perusal of the above order makes it clear that the earlier order of the learned Labour Court, dated 6‑4‑1977, had been set aside and the learned Labour Court was required, first to give a finding on the issue of limitation arid condonation, and secondly, to give a decision based on the finding on the issue of limitation. The learned Labour Court has complied with the first direction of my learned predecessor and has given a finding on the issue of limitation. This finding is based on the decision of this Tribunal, dated 5‑11‑1979, but it has unfortunately lost sight of the second direction given by this Tribunal and failed to give a decision based on the finding of limitation. The result is that there is only a decision .of the learned Labour Court on the issue of limitation and there is no finding of the learned Labour Court on the merits of the case, namely, whether the grievance petition has been allowed or rejected. Presumably, the learned Labour Court was of the opinion that it was not competent for it to go into the other questions and give a finding on the issue whether it was allowing or rejecting the grievance petition and this presumption gains support from the fact that the learned Labour Court refused to allow evidence to be led on the question whether the respondent‑workman during the period that he is alleged to have been wrongfully kept out of employment by the appellant‑Company was gainfully employed elsewhere, but clearly this presumption on the part of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is not well‑founded, since the entire order of his predecessor has been set aside, and consequently, no order was in existence which could serve as a bar to his examining any issue raised before him, or which could be considered by me in the appeal, except the order regarding condonation.of the limitation period. 4, Now as regards the condonation of the period of limitation, as already pointed out, the decision of the learned Labour Court is based on the decision of this Tribunal, dated 5‑11‑1979, The view taken by this Tribunal in that decision has not been challenged. I would accordingly agree with the view of the learned Labour Court that the condonation has been correctly allowed. However, as there is no order in existence on the merits of the case, I have no alternative but to remand the case to the learned Labour Court for giving its decision on merits based on the finding of limitation. I might clarify that no elaborate order by the learned Labour Court is necessary if he agrees with the view of his predecessor. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing him from coming to a contrary view. However, in that case, he will be required to give a detailed decision giving reasons in support of his view. In any case, since the issue has been raised whether the respondent‑workman was gainfully employed elsewhere during at least a part of the period for which the back benefits have been awarded to him by the predecessor of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, an opportunity should be given to both the sides to lead evidence on this issue and a finding thereon should be given.

5. In compliance with the order of this Tribunal when the appeal was admitted to regular hearing, the appellant Company had deposited the back benefits awarded by the learned Labour Court to the respondent‑workman. The amount deposited is directed to be returned to the appellant‑Company.