2010 PLP 237 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.

The petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against an order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent No.2 which was dismissed on 11-7-2008 for non-prosecution. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an application for restoration of the petition and also appended with it an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In the application moved for restoration of the petition it was stated that the petitioner fell ill and was also hampered in his efforts due to the fact that the premises of the Labour Court had been shifted from one place to another.

2. Application seeking restoration was dismissed by Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, on 1-4-2009, on the ground that there were no sufficient grounds for restoration of the grievance petition.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal on 5-6-2009 before respondent No.1 which was also dismissed by order dated 4-9-2009 on the ground that the appellant/petitioner had filed an application for restoration of the grievance petition before Labour Court on 17-2-2009 after a period of more than seven months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has argued that the petitioner fell ill, the Labour Court shifted its premises and as such there existed good grounds for condonation of delay.

5. After hearing the arguments addressed by learned counsel for petitioner and going through the record it can safely be concluded that there were no grounds for setting aside order dated 11-7-2008 of the Labour Court, wherein, the grievance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner in his application seeking restoration of his grievance petition has neither mentioned the nature of his illness nor appended any medical certificate by a doctor to corroborate the same. The second ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Labour Court had shifted its premises, it was not possible for him to have filed an application seeking restoration of his grievance petition in time is also not tenable in law. It is trite law that a petition which is dismissed for non-prosecution can only be restored if there exist "sufficient grounds" which would warrant its restoration. The apex Court in Sahib Khan and others v. Ghulam Dastgir and others 1980 SCMR 561(1) has held that any delay which is occasioned on account of the petitioner falling ill per se is not a good ground for condonation of delay. In any case, the petitioner had to explain delay of each and every day as held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCMR 37 which admittedly has not been done.

6. The respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated 4-9-2009 has rightly concluded that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent and that there were no valid grounds for restoration of the petition.

7. Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-47/L Petition dismissed.