2012 PLP 466 (PLC)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY, GUJRANWALA Versus IRSHAD AHMED and others
| Citation | 2012 PLP 466 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman |
| Parties | MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY, GUJRANWALA Versus IRSHAD AHMED and others |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 466 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 466 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 466 (PLC) (MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER AND SANITATION AGENCY, GUJRANWALA Versus IRSHAD AHMED and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Din Ch. for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th November, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 17
Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), S.47(S)
Appeal filed by petitioner under S.17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 having been dismissed, petitioner filed revision, which was barred by time, and petitioner had not filed any application for condonation of delay
Effect
Petitioner had to explain each day's delay
Court was to first determine the point of limitation and then to proceed on merits
Nobody could 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 party
Appeal before the Labour Court under S.17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was equally time barred for more than three months, which had shown the indifference of the petitioner department towards the government cases
To condone such a lengthy delay, no confidence inspiring cogent or plausible explanation had been rendered by the counsel for the petitioner
Petition was dismissed. 1989 SCMR 864 and 2006 SCMR 783 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).
This revision petition challenges the legality of the judgment dated 18-12-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was dismissed.
2. The office has reported that the revision petition is barred by time i.e. 7 months and 9 days.
3. It is submitted by .the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the fact that the case had to be examined at various levels before filing the revision petition as such the delay has occurred which is not intentional.
4. Preliminary arguments have been heard.
5. The petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay either. It is now a settled law that the petitioner has to explain each day's 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 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.
6. It is noteworthy that the appeal before the Labour Court under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was equally time barred for more than three months which shows the indifference of the department towards the Government cases. To condone such a huge delay no confidence inspiring cogent or plausible explanation has been rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In this view of the matter, the revision petitions is hereby dismissed in limine. HBT/10/PLT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.