2025 PLP 26 (PLC)

SHAHID MEHMOOD KHOKHAR, CHAIRMAN.

Instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 18/07/2019 when a direction was issued to the office, that instant case be registered and notice be issued to the respondent for 06/08/2019, whereafter matter was adjourned for 18/09/2019, 23/10/2019, 04/12/2019, 23/09/2020 and on 05/11/2020. On the said date, learned counsel for respondent filed an application with a contention that since instant petition is hopelessly time barred, therefore, application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. may be decided in the first instance but matter was adjourned for 06/01/2021. However, on 06/01/2021, this Tribunal passed the following order :- "Written reply has already been filed by learned counsel for the respondent. There is no major controversy between the parties except calculation of arrears according to the 7th Wage Board Award.

2. Procedure of this Tribunal is very simple in recovery of money due from an employer which is described under section 16 (1)(2) of the ITNE (Procedure and Function) Rules, 1977 which is as follows. 16.(1) On receipt of an application, In triplicate, from an employee, who may be entitled to receive any money or wages from his employer, complaining that the employer has refused or failed to pay the money or wages due to him, the Tribunal may Issue a notice in form "G" to the employer accompanied by a copy of (he complaint, and the employer shall, on the date, time and place fixed in the notice, submit his written statement. (2) The applicant may, if allowed by the Tribunal, file replication, and after hearing the parties the Tribunal may pass such orders as envisaged in subsection (1) of section 51 road with subsection (4) of section 13 of the Act.

3. The Tribunal also has power to decide the matter under rule 17 of the ITNE (Procedure and Function) Rules, 1977 and has provision to follow the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of 1908) with regard to civil suits as far as it can be made applicable in the matter. Section 17 of the ITNE (Procedure and Function) Rules, 1977 as follows.

17. Subject to the provision of these rules, the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of 1908), with regard to civil suits may be followed as far as it can be made applicable in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

4. In this case there is no need to follow the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of 1908) and this matter will be decided under rule 16 (1) (2) of the ITNE (Procedure and Function) Rules, 1977.

5. Respondent is directed to file statement of account. Let this case be refixed for 09/02/2021 for arguments at Lahore."

2. Thereafter, matter was fixed on 09/02/2021 and after hearing the parties, the then Chairman reserved it for pronouncement of judgment but thereafter, it could not be fixed due to lapse of contract of the then Chairman by the efflux of time. Matter was again taken up on 26/12/2022, notice "Pairwi" was issued to the parties for 13/02/2023. On 13/02/2023, none appeared on behalf of petitioner, therefore, office was directed to repeat notice to petitioner and matter was adjourned for 26/04/2023 and again none appeared on behalf of petitioner and matter was posted for 20/06/2023. On the said date, Mr. Deen Muhammad Dard appeared and authorized representative of petitioner and respondent was directed to file statement of account and matter was refixed on 18/10/2023 but on the said date no material proceedings could take place and thus case was refixed on 09/01/2024 and after hearing it was adjourned for arguments of the parties on application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

3. Today, Mr. Deen Muhammad Dard appeared on behalf of petitioner, whereas, Sheikh Nabeel Ahmed Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent management. Parties were directed to advance their arguments. Authorized representative of the petitioner submitted that petitioner was inducted in the respondent establishment on 01/01/1997 and his salary was fixed at Rs. 4000/- per month, which was subsequently increased from time to time as Rs. 5500/-, Rs. 6000/-, Rs.9000/- and lastly it was increased as Rs. 9980/- per month for a period of one year purely on contract basis and this amount was paid as consolidated remuneration. Authorized representative further submits that since the 7th Wage Board Award was pronounced and made effective w.e.f. 01/07/2000, therefore, respondent management was under obligation to implement the same in its true letter and spirit but despite repeated demands, respondent management failed to implement the 7th Wage Board Award and thus, petitioner was terminated from service on 31/12/2012. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file instant petition with the following claim, accrued under the 7th Wage Board Award :- Salary arrears / difference : Rs. 786,004/- Leave account : Rs. 203,945/- Night Transport Allowance : Rs. 138,750/- Night Duty Allowance : Rs. 160,377/- Gratuity : Rs. 297,840/- Research and Study Allowance : Rs. 37,500/- 04-remaining salaries : Rs. 63,040/-; and 09% interest due to non-payment : Rs. 759,355/- Thus, he claimed total amount to be recovered Rs. 2,446,811/-.

4. Whereas, on the other hand, respondent management filed its reply by raising number of legal objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction, time barred / law of limitation and the cause of action, as according to learned counsel for respondent, the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed on each account as raised in preliminary objections. He further submitted that respondent has filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on 05/12/2019 in which, preliminary objection regarding limitation (time barred) of the petition was pointed out along with other objections, therefore, learned counsel for respondent submitted that it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to decide the same at the first instance. Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that respondent has already filed written arguments on behalf of respondent, copy of which is placed on record and the main emphasis is on the point of limitation as according to learned counsel for respondent, services of the petitioner were terminated on 31/12/2012, whereas, petitioner has preferred instant petition before this Tribunal on 18/07/2019, which is hopelessly time barred and the petitioner has neither given any justification for an inordinate delay in filing of instant petition before this Tribunal nor has given any plausible reasons in the petition which have precluded him in filing of the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that law helps the vigilant and not the indolent, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any leniency as he has been sleeping over his alleged rights for more than nineteen years, as the 7th Wage Board Award was pronounced and made effective from 01/07/2000 but he preferred instant petition on 18/07/2019. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has suddenly awaken up from deep slumber in the year 2019. Furthermore, petitioner has not even filed any application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by honourable Division Bench of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad reported as PLC 2019 (C.S.) 541, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the case as the petition having no cause of action as well as being barred by law (time barred). When confronted, neither the petitioner nor his authorized representative could satisfactorily answered the objection with regard to law of limitation as held by the honourable Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in its judgment reported as PLC 2019 (C.S.) 541, nor the petitioner or his representative could satisfy this Tribunal by explaining any reason, which precluded him for file the petition before this Tribunal in time. Authorized representative further submits that 7th Wage Board Award was challenged by APNS, a representative body of owners of newspapers, which was decided in the year 2012 through judgment reported as PLD 2012 SC 1 and petition filed by APNS was dismissed, therefore, petitioner has filed instant petition after pronouncement of above said judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. When asked as to why he did not file the case soon after pronouncement of judgment of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the authorized representative gave no satisfactory answer. Therefore, I am not inclined to the contentions of authorized representative and following the dictum of superior Courts on the law of limitation including the above said judgment of honourable Division Bench of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad reported as PLC 2019 (C.S.) 541, I do not see any reason to proceed further in the matter anymore.

5. Since, the petitioner has been failed to establish any ground for acceptance of petition or to show bona fide in having any cause of action in filing of petition even after pronouncement of judgment by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as PLD 2012 SC 1, therefore, I do not find any plausible cause in the petition to proceed further in the matter, thus, instant petition having no merits and being barred by law (time barred) is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room. MQ/4/ITNE Petition dismisse