2001 PLP 350 (PLC)

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the tribunals below wrongly dismissed the grievance petition of the petitioner as time‑barred. He further submits that both the tribunals below have decided the case on surmises and conjecture rather evidence on record. The respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that it was for respondent No.3 to prove the service of termination order upon the ‑petitioner. He further submits that both the tribunals below have decided the case against‑the petitioner by misreading or non‑reading of the record. He further submits that both the tribunals below have decided the case without adverting to the Order 12(3) of West Pakistan Sanding Orders Ordinance, 1968 which is mandatory in nature. The grievance notice as well 'as grievance petition were filed by the petitioner well in time in accordance with section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 but both the Courts below did not consider this aspect of the case at all. He further submits that the termination order was never served upon him. He further submits that no evidence was recorded against him in presence of the petitioner after notice to the petitioner. This fact was accepted by the R.W.2 in his statement in cross‑examination. He further submits that judgment of both the Courts below are in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:‑‑ 1992 PLC 918 Agricultural Engineer and others v. Abdul Razzak and others. 1974 PLC 205, Guftar Shah's case, PLD 1975 Karachi 312 Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd.'s case, 1990 PLC 706 Abdul Shakoor's case, 1988 PLC 582 Hadait Ali and 11 other's case, 1984 PLC 1169 Muhammad Raf3q's case, 1992 PLC 462 M/s. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.'s case and 1993 SCMR‑ 603 Alamgir's case, and PLD 1974 SC 393 Muhammad Siddique's case,

3. Learned Additional Advocate‑General submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner and this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the same in a Constitutional jurisdiction. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the Tribunal below. He further submits that judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. He urged that both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner that petitioner did not send grievance notice and did not file grievance petition within the prescribed period under the provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The Punjab Appellate Tribunal has decided the case without adverting to the Order 12(3) of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance. Even otherwise the Punjab Appellate Tribunal did not discuss the evidence on record. Respondent produced the order of dismissal Exh.R.4 through his witness. R.W.2 in his cross‑examination admitted in the following terms:‑‑ "The termination of the service letter of the petitioner was not posted directly from our office to the petitioner. It is sent to his immediate Incharge who had sent to him. I have no proof of this order having been served upon him." The respondent did not produce any other witness to prove that dismissal order was served upon the petitioner or not. This fact brings the case in the area that the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal countersigned the order of the Punjab Labour Court No. l which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohy‑ud- Din's case PLD 1964 SC

829. It is the duty and obligation of the tribunal below to decide the controversy between the parties with reasons. The judgment of the Punjab Appellate Tribunal below did not properly appreciate the evidence on record. Therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‑PLD 1970 SC 173 Mollah Ejahar Ali's case. In view of what has been discussed above, the judgment of the Punjab Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Punjab Appellate Tribunal to decide afresh after appreciation of evidence on record. Meaning thereby appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal. Patties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 12‑1‑2002 who is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./W‑19/L Case remanded.