2012 PLP 173 (PLC)

ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal calls in question the validity of the order dated 14-1-2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore whereby grievance petition filed by the appellant under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was dismissed on two grounds namely that it was barred by two months and no application for condonation of delay had been filed; and secondly that the appellant had not challenged the order of his dismissal dated 23-5-2006 and has only filed the application against the order whereby his review petition was dismissed on 1-8-2006.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant was employed as a Welder in the respondent establishment. In the first instance he was dismissed on 6-3-2000 but on filing appeal before the FST he was reinstated on 26-5-2005 which permitted the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant. After proceeding with the matter, the department again dismissed him on 23-5-2006. He filed a review petition on 6-6-2006 which was dismissed on 1-8-2006.

4. Arguments have been heard and available record perused.

5. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he has filed an application for condonation of delay which provides reasonable explanation for thee alleged delay. In the application it has been pointed out that although the impugned order was passed on 14-1-2009 but it was communicated to the appellant on 12-2-2009 by the clerk of the counsel as a result of which they applied for certified copy of the order on 13-2-2009. On the receipt of the copy he filed the appeal on 25-6-2009.

6. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the certified copies of the order filed by the appellant along with the memo of appeal clearly show that the counsel of the parties were present and heard and the judgment was announced on the same day in their presence. So it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant that the copy was communicated to him later on.

7. Even otherwise the stamp affixed by the court on the certified copy of the order shows that the appellant submitted an application for certified copy on 13-2-2009 i.e. after the expiry of the limitation period. It was attested on 14-2-2009 and completed on the same day i.e. 14-2-2009 but the appellant went to collect the copy on 28-4-2009. No reasonable, plausible or confidence inspiring explanation has been rendered by the appellant for such a colossal delay. It was ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan (1989 SCMR 864 and 2006 SCMR 783) that it was the primary duty of the court to first determine the point of limitation and then to proceed on merits. It is now well-settled law that nobody can be allowed to circumvent the provisions of Statute of Limitation. Party approaching the court of competent jurisdiction for relief beyond the specified period of limitation was bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the respective forum because valuable rights had accrued to the other side.

8. In this view of the matter the appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed being time-barred. H.B.T./1/PLT Appeal dismissed.