2001 PLP 62 (PLC)

Syed Safdar Imam Bukhari for Appellant. Muhammad Arif Sindhu for Respondent No.

1. By an order, dated 4‑12‑1998, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Multan granted permission to Hamayun Hasan, etc., grievance‑petitioners before him, to file the grievance petition afresh, after leave to withdraw the previous petition was allowed.

2. These persons were serving as employees in different capacities in the factory and had filed a grievance petition against their removal from service. It was also prayed that they be allowed to continue in service, and their resignations be not obtained against their wishes.

3. The employees initially had access to the N.I.R.C. and subsequently they approached the Labour Court in the matter. The N.I.R.C. and returned the petition for want of jurisdiction. The fact remains that the grievance petition was filed with considerable delay and without service of the statutory grievance notice. Proceedability of the petition as such was challenged by the Establishment, describing the same to be badly barred by the law of limitation. Plea of estoppel and acquiescence on the part of the workers was also raised.

4. Out of total 199 employees, as many as 186 are stated to have resigned voluntarily, in accordance with the agreement, dated 10‑10‑1996 by violating which, and after having voluntarily resigned, on getting their dues, in the manner of full and final settlement, the employees, who had themselves been active in the process of privatization of the factory, are said to have started behaving obnoxiously in the manner of 'crying over suit spilt milk'. Had the resignation been obtained forcibly there was nothing to prevent the affected people to lodge F.I.Rs. against the Management: Material facts are stated to have been concealed and the damn development that the factory stands closed, according to the Establishment. Respondents Nos. l and 2, who are petitioners before the learned Labour Court, are said to be members of no trade union, the office‑bearers of the erstwhile C.B.A. being wholly different set of people.

5. Normally, for removal of some technical defect, the lis, suit or petition, may be permitted to be withdrawn; but the situation on here is altogether different. As already said, the N.I.R.C. was unsuccessfully approached initially. Grievance petition before the learned lower Court was filed subsequently, and that too without service of the grievance notice in time, and if at all it was issued, It was certainly not done within the statutory time‑limit. For removal of this fatal defect, and endeavour is being made; and the learned Labour Court has come to the rescue of the employees, apprehending their technical knock‑out. I do not think that the impugned order is as innocent and simple or formal, as prima facie it appears to be. I don?t find myself inclined to endorse it. The appeal is allowed and the order, dated 4‑12‑1998 is undone; and with that the grievance petition goes. The same, if at all, in amended form, it has been preferred by now, is dismissed I with costs. H.B.T./14/P. (Lab. Trib)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.