1989 PLP 826 (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. MN‑454 of 1987. decided on 12th January, 1988. ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 3 6 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Evidence‑‑Grievance petition withdrawn with permission to bring fresh one‑‑Second petition dismissed on ground that grievance notice was time‑barred‑‑Date on which previous petition is Muhammad Salman Khurshid v. Divisional Superintendent allowed to be withdrawn not mentioned‑‑Plea in appeal that Labour Court should have called for and perused file of previous petition to find out what was date of its institution and on which date same was allowed to be withdrawn, rejected‑ Held: (i) Courts have to decide cases on evidence brought and it is not their function to play part of parties, (ii) since objection with regard to limitation had been raised it was duty of appellant to prove that grievance notice and petition were within time, (iii) if there was any material on previous file same could be produced as evidence and it was duty of appellant to get its copy and place it on present file, and (iv) Labour Court was justified in saying that no good ground was given for condonation of delay and the ground on which previous petition was allowed to be withdrawn was not shown. S.A. Latif for Appellant. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 12‑11‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as having been improperly presented.

2. The appellant had challenged the order dated 21‑6‑1982 whereby he was reverted. The previous grievance petition was withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh one. He brought fresh petition which has vide the impugned order been dismissed on the ground that the grievance notice was time‑barred and no good ground was given for condonation of delay. No date is given on which the previous grievance petition was allowed to be withdrawn. The learned lower Court, therefore, is justified in saying that the time wasted by the appellant cannot be possibly determined. The learned lower Court is also justified in saying that no good ground is given for the condonation of delay and what was the A ground on which the previous petition was allowed to be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned lower Court should have called for and perused the file of the previous grievance petition to find out what was the date of the institution and what was the date on which it was allowed to be withdrawn. On the face of it the argument is without force. The previous case had been disposed of as having been withdrawn and if there was any material on that file which could be produced as evidence in the present case it was the duty of the appellant to get the copy and place it on the present file. The Courts have to decide the cases on the evidence which has been brought and it is not their function to play the part of any of the parties. Since an objection with regard to the limitation has been raised it was the duty of the appellant to prove that the grievance notice and the petition were within time.

3. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./512/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.