1991 PLP 40 (PLC)

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner. Ch. Habib-ur-Rehman and Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the order of remand passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 1-11-1988 whereby the order dated 10th April, 1988 of the Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for its decision afresh after allowing the parties to lead evidence.

2. The petitioner, who was working as Officer Grade-III in the Noorpur Faisalabad Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan (respondent No.l), was dismissed from service by the respondent on 25-4-1981. On departmental representation his dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement. He, therefore, filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, which was contested by respondent No.l. It appears that originally no objection as to limitation was taken but during the course of hearing before the Punjab Labour Court it was objected that the notice was served by the petitioner beyond the prescribed time. This objection did not find favour with the Labour Court and was overruled. The grievance petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by Punjab Labour Court on 10th April, 1988 and the order of his compulsory retirement was set aside. Aggrieved by this decision, an appeal was filed by respondent No.l Bank which succeeded on the ground that the Labour Court should have allowed the parties to lead evidence on the question of limitation and then decided as to whether the grievance notice was barred by time or not. This order of remand has been challenged by the petitioner in this constitutional petition.

3. The only grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that while remanding the case to the Labour Court, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has made certain observations which have virtually fore-closed the question of limitation and there is nothing left for the Labour Court to decide. In particular an exception was taken to the finding of respondent No. 1 to the effect that the cause of action arose to the petitioner on 2nd of August, 1983 when the first appeal was decided. The learned counsel argued that after having reached the conclusion that 2nd of August, 1983 was the date when the cause of grievance arose to the petitioner, there was nothing left to remand. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand stated that the observations made by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal were purely tentative in nature as would appear from the concluding para of the order itself and the matter has been left open for the Labour Court to decide after recording the evidence of the parties. The apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be well-founded. Reading of the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, as a whole, shows that no positive finding on any of the question raised before the Court was recorded and the observations made therein were only for the purpose of considering as to whether the matter should be remanded or not. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, it is, however, clarified that the matter shall be decided by the Labour Court on it own merits after allowing the parties to lead evidence, uninfluenced by an observation made in the impugned order. With these observations, this constitutional petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.Y.H./M-2221/L Case remanded.