2007 PLP 737 (SCMR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.

Tanveer Hussain has been granted leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 22-10-2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court whereby, a writ petition filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 1-4-2002 of Punjab labour Appellate Tribunal, was dismissed.

2. Numerous employees of Ravi Ryan Limited (respondent No.1), on 12-12-1997, were transferred to Karachi. They filed a petition before National Industrial Relations Commission, which was dismissed on 15-1-1998 as also their appeal before the full bench of the Commission, on 17-2-1999. A writ petition thereagainst was disposed of on 28-6-2000 with direction to the petitioners therein to apply for benefit under the Golden Handshake Scheme and further that if someone did not apply for the said benefit by or before 17-8-2000, the writ petition shall be deemed to be dismissed to his or their extent.

3. The aforesaid decision was further challenged before this Court. The matter was pending when respondent No.1 recalled the transfer order but at the same time, on 9-9-2000, terminated the services of the employees. The appellant and others served the respondent with a grievance notice dated 16-3-2001 and thereafter filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), which was dismissed on. 14-4-2001 and maintained by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide judgment, dated 1-4-2002. The appellant then filed writ petition which was also dismissed and hence this appeal.

4. The aforesaid narration of facts would prima facie indicate that the grievance notice was served upon the respondent with some delay for which condonation was sought under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In short, all the forums were of the view that the issuance of grievance notice, being an act prior to the filing of grievance petition under section 25-A of the IRO and being a matter between the employer and the employee, the delay if caused could not be condoned. The forums, most probably, were of the view that only that delay is or is not condonable which takes place in resorting to the judicial forum.

5. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for appellant assailed the view so taken, on the ground, that all forums had altogether ignored the provisions of section 65-B of the IRO, which special law, itself provided the authority of condoning the delay to the Labour Court. Section 65-B of the IRO states:-- "65-B. Limitation.-- The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), shall apply in computing the period within which an application is to be made, or any other thing is to be done, under this Ordinance."

6. The learned counsel further added that the provisions of section 65-B of the IRO and its interpretation adhered to by the learned counsel, were never novel for the Labour Appellate Tribunal and that different Tribunals, on different occasion's, have consistently been holding that the Labour Court as well as the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone the delay caused even in the issuance of grievance notice. That Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab in United Bank Limited v. Jamshed Sadiq 1983 PLC 554, Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh in Khuda Bux Lassi v. National Motors Limited Karachi 1985 PLC 1011 and Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab in Sh. Abdul Razzaq v. Chairman, Town Committee, Kabirwala 1990 PLC 616 have taken the same view but in appellant's case it was quite the reverse.

7. We have given our considered thought to the legal point in issue. Section 5 of the Limitation Act itself provides that the section can be made applicable by or under any enactment if such enactment so provides. So far as the Industrial Relations Ordinance is concerned, section 65-B (supra) makes the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the Ordinance. There can be no doubt about such application and thus, we are left with the only dispute as to whether it is applicable to the events occurring with or after the filing of grievance petition under section 25-A of the IRO or also to the events occurring prior thereto.

8. It is an undisputed fact that a grievance notice by an employee to the employer, prior to the institution of a grievance petition before the Court, is issued under section 25-A of the IRO. The added phrase, "any other thing is to be done, under this Ordinance", laid down in unambiguous terms that section 65-B of the Ordinance, or for that matter section 5 of the Limitation Act, is applicable to anything or any other thing required to be done under the Ordinance. The Legislature never uses the words either superfluously or meaninglessly. Each and every word of enactment is, therefore, to be construed strictly in accordance with the ordinary use and meaning thereof. We, therefore, hold that the provisions of section 65-B of the Ordinance are applicable to any application or anything to be done under the Ordinance. The Courts of the Labour hierarchy, therefore, had the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the grievance notice, provided always, if sufficient cause within the contemplation of section 5 of the Limitation Act, is available. Such jurisdiction has wrongly been denied to the appellant.

9. The forums below, on the one hand, were of the view that they had no jurisdiction to condone the delay yet, on the other, they have discussed the merits of the limitation as well. It was simply uncalled for.

10. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the judgments dated 1-4-2002 of the Punjab. Labour Appellate Tribunal and dated 22-10-2002 of the learned Lahore High Court are set aside, by holding, that the Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 65-B of the IRO. The case is remanded to the Labour Court, concerned for redeciding the question of limitation on merits. Any other observation made by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, as well as the learned High Court shall not affect the decision of the Labour Court, on merits. M.H./T-2/SC Case remanded.