1997 PLP 250 (PLC)

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1996. Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu, learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, on 3‑4‑1993, dismissed Muhammad Nazir's grievance petition, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, treating it as time‑barred. He has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. Muhammad Nazir was an employee of Pakistan Railways and had been dismissed from service on 30‑4‑1985. Grievance petition before the Labour Court was filed by him, without an application for condonation of delay, and it was dismissed on 15‑6‑1991. This Tribunal, however, remanded the case, vide order dated 17‑9‑1991, where-after an application for condonation of delay was submitted but the same was also rejected on 8‑3‑1992. Revision petition preferred by the petitioner was accepted by this Tribunal on 28‑4‑1992. It was directed that the application for condonation of delay be decided afresh. The respondent Department took up the plea that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, having not initially accompanied the main petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, was liable to dismissal.

3. Main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the aggrieved workman had been seeking his remedy in wrong forums and the time so spent should have been taken into account by the learned Labour Court, with a view to judge the credentials of the grievance petitioner, who could not wilfully and even negligently make the omission. Such lapse would have dealt a damaging blow to his cause. This all happened inadvertently, and bona fides of the aggrieved person could not be. questioned, it is urged. Learned Labour Court, relying on 1993 PLC 203, on 3‑4‑1993, allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the respondents and dismissed Muhammad Nazir's grievance petition, as being barred by the law of limitation.

4. It is surprising that Muhammad Nazir has throughout been ill- advised. He had approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of arrears for the period he had remained out of job. He had also recourse to the Civil Court, but his civil suit was dismissed on 13‑4‑1988, for want of jurisdiction. Twice at least he unsuccessfully invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court. Writ Petition No.2084 of 1985 was filed on 17‑5‑1985, and it was dismissed, on the following day, with the direction that he should file a grievance petition in the Labour Court. On 11‑6‑1986, he submitted such a petition, which was returned on 29‑10‑1986, as the Hon'ble High Court had rendered a general ruling on 10‑4‑1985 and the Labour Court was of the view that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Department, on 4‑12‑1986, asked the employee to resume duty; and he reported for duty on 12‑12‑1986.

5. Muhammad Nazir on 23‑5‑1988 served a notice on the employer, for realisation of his dues. Writ Petition No. 4875 of 1986 was also filed for recovery of arrears, and subsequently a grievance petition on 25‑6‑1988 for achieving the same object was submitted in the Labour Court. At page 93 of the Labour Court's file there is available an affidavit shown to have been sworn and submitted by Muhammad Nazir, but it is without any verification by an Oath Commissioner. An application for condonation of delay exists at page

95. It is undated, but it is shown to have been submitted on the same date, i.e. 25‑6‑1988. Both these scripts do not carry any stamp of the Reader of the Court or the Superintendent of the Office, and these papers might have been inserted later on, in an unauthorised manner. Page‑marking has been done thrice. Yet another application for condonation of delay is available on record of the Labour Court, at pages 97 to 100, accompanying affidavit being at page

101. The same are dated 26‑11‑1991 and are in order.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the course of his arguments, has taken up an odd plea. He says that he had submitted an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act alright, but it was owing to a misunderstanding that he could not bring it to the notice of the Court, nor did the Court probably come across it, but it was all on account of some confusion. The application dated 26‑11‑1991, under section 5 of the Limitation Act (at page 97), however, gives a lie to the aforesaid assertion, as it has clearly been stated therein that the petitioner had not submitted an application for condonation of delay, with the main grievance petition, owing to inadvertence or oversight, but the omission was not intentional. As he had remained busy in pursuing his cause in the wrong forums, the Civil Court and the High Court, as also before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, he could not detect the defect, inherent in his move made to the Labour Court by way of a grievance petition. An earnest request has been made in the application dated 26‑11‑1991 for condonation of delay.

7. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the delay is palpable. The grievance petition was filed in the Labour Court on 30‑6‑1988, and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted with a delay of about 3‑1/2 years. ‑on 26‑11‑1991. Muhammad Nazir's dismissal from service had taken place on 30‑4‑1985. Even the grievance petition, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thus suffered from a gross and inexcusable lapse; and if that much delay had initially been caused in coming to the Labour Court, same should have been taken by the aggrieved person to have made a prayer for condonation of the patent delay, by submitting an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, alongwith an affidavit, in the proper form. This, however, was done with a further delay of 3‑1/2 years, as already said.

8. In these circumstances of the case, the lapse or lacuna, which the grievance petition suffered from, could not lightly be taken and the gross delay in no manner could be condoned. In coming to such conclusion, the learned Labour Court does not appear to have fallen in error. I would endorse the impugned order dated 3‑4‑1993, and would dismiss the appeal, being devoid of any merit, but with no order as to costs. A.A./863/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.