1991 PLP 169 (PLC)

Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, D.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1990. This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging the legality of the judgment dated 6‑3‑1989, of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the decision dated 7‑12‑1988, of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala reinstating the petitioner in service was set aside and the grievance petition was dismissed as time‑barred.

2. The dispute in this case relates to the reinstatement of the petitioner in the service of Postal Department as Head Sorter. It is not necessary to go into the detailed merits of the case. Suffice it to say, that the petitioner was admittedly dismissed from service by the competent authority on 10‑6‑1982. He made his grievance by way of appeal/revision before the departmental authority. His appeal was dismissed on 3‑12‑1984 and second representation against the aforesaid decision was also rejected by the Director‑General Post Office by order dated 4‑5‑1987. The petitioner filed a belated grievance notice to the employers on 18‑7‑1987. The respondent Departmental authority failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Consequently, he moved a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court on 12‑8‑1987. This was resisted by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

3. The Labour Court after perusing the material available on record and hearing the parties condoned the delay and held on meats that there was no justification for dismissal of the petitioner. On appeal the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, after re‑appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that there was no justification for holding the ex parte enquiry against the petitioner herein. No enquiry notice was served and charge‑sheet sent to him came back undelivered. It was, however, held that the grievance petition was hopelessly time‑barred and no sufficient ground was made out for condonation of delay. Thus the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was accepted and the decision of the Labour Court was set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the legality of the impugned decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, frankly conceded that his grievance petition was time‑barred. He, However, argued that the discretion exercised by the Punjab Labour Court in condoning the delay was neither fanciful nor arbitrary and, therefore, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with it unless it was found that the discretion vesting in the Labour Court was exercised illegally. 5.Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. Attorney General was unable to show that the discretion exercised by the Punjab Labour Court was unjustified.

6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the parties have no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is reinstated without back benefits in the facts and circumstances of the present cause. The concession made by the learned counsel for the parties appears to be reasonable. I am, therefore, inclined to hold accordingly.

7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 6‑3‑1989 is declared as without lawful authority but the petitioner would be reinstated forthwith without back benefits. To this extent the writ petition is accepted but there shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.M./M/2446/L Petition accepted.