1996 PLP 297 (PLC)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dated 29‑4‑1992 whereby Constitutional petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the short ground that it was filed after a lapse of 13 months for which "no explanation whatsoever has been tendered".

2. On perusal of the petition filed in this Court, we find that the delay in filing the Constitutional petition has been sought to be explained on the ground that "the time was consumed in obtaining certified copies and then the petitioner met an accident whereby his leg was fractured". Such an explanation is not shown to have been given in the Constitutional petition filed in the High Court. No legitimate exception can, therefore, be taken to the dismissal of the Constitutional petition on the ground of laches. In the interest of justice, however, we have heard the learned counsel even on merits.

3. Facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant who was working as U.D.C. in Pakistan Railways submitted an application on 14‑3‑1988 seeking premature retirement with effect from 30‑6‑1988. Appellant is stated to have made another application dated 29‑5‑1988 requesting therein that he may be retired with effect from 3‑8‑1988 instead of 30‑6‑1988. He was, however, retired with effect from 30‑6‑1988. Aggrieved of this action, appellant filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O. in the Labour Court stating therein that he had made an application to the departmental authorities for extending the date of his premature retirement from 30‑6‑1988 to 3‑8‑1988 or until the decision of the Court cases but no response was given and instead he was retired on 30‑6‑1988 due to ill‑will and bad faith of the respondents and with a view to cause harm to the appellant in pensionary benefits. It was accordingly prayed by the appellant that the "date of premature retirement dated 30‑6‑1988 may kindly be waived off till the decision of the Court cases or on final date for premature retirement fixed for 3‑8‑1988 A.N".

4. Punjab Labour Court accepted the grievance petition holding that the appellant had made an application well in time for pending his retirement till the disposal of the Court cases but that was not attended to and the appellant was given premature retirement in disregard of that application. The retirement of the appellant was thus held to be mala fide and not sustainable. This was vide order dated 16‑5‑1990.

5. On appeal by the respondent, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings of the Labour Court and that the applications said to have been made by the appellant' seeking extension in the date of his retirement to 3‑8‑1988 or till after the decision of the Court cases were not received in the office of the respondent. The learned Tribunal observed that there was no evidence on record that any cases were pending in Court when the appellant was retired with effect from 30‑6‑1988. The learned Tribunal on appraisal of all the relevant material available on the record came to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly retired with effect from 30‑6‑1988 as per his request in the application dated 14‑3‑1988 Exh. R‑

1. It was, however, observed that the Labour Court could at tire most hold that the appellant stood retired with effect from 3‑8‑1988. Taking this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal by his judgment dated 2‑10‑1990 set aside the decision of the Labour Court and held that the appellant stood retired on 3‑8‑1988 and directed the respondent to pay wages and other emoluments found due to him.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily relied upon the two documents Annexed D‑3 and D‑7 to contend that the applications moved by the appellant for extension in the date of his voluntary retirement were received in the office of the respondent and the finding of the Appellate Tribunal to the contrary is based on misreading of the record. The contention has no substance Annexed D‑3 and D‑7, according to the learned counsel, were placed on the record of the Labour Court as Exhs. P‑3 and P‑

7. The first document is a letter which purported to forward the appellant's application requesting to pend his voluntary retirement till the decision of the Court case. The learned Tribunal gave no weight to this document for the reason that there was no evidence that the cases were still pending when the appellant was retired with effect from 30‑6‑1988. The second document Annexed D‑7/Exh. P‑7 is a copy of letter dated 28‑4‑1988 issued from the office of the Works Manager saying that the appellant be informed that "his request for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted unless, the disciplinary case is finalised". This document is of no help to the appellant as it makes no reference whatever to his claim that he sought extension in the date of his voluntary retirement. In any case, the learned Tribunal has observed and rightly so that "This letter has no evidentiary value because it does not bear the signature of the Works Manager".

7. Having heard the learned counsel and having examined all the relevant documents placed on the present record, we are satisfied that the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking the view that the petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 30‑6‑1988. Thus, even on merits, the appellant had no case to agitate in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. A. A./A‑1340/S Appeal dismissed.