Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑449 of 1984, decided on 9th March, 1985.

‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 65‑B, Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14‑ Limita tion‑ Condonation of delay due to processing matter before wrong forum‑Provisions of S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 applicable without specific mention in S. 65‑B of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969‑Petition filed in Labour Court having jurisdiction in Lahore under impression that Head Office of Establishment situated at Lahore‑No proof that Head Office situated at Lahore but cor respondence received at "Post Box Number, Lahore"‑Petitioner thus under bona fide mistaken belief filing petition in Court having jurisdiction in Lahore and on its return for want of territorial jurisdiction presenting same to Court of jurisdiction‑Time spent before wrong forum, in circumstances, condoned.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant,

Bilal Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 4th March, 1985.

The decision dated 4th July, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been chal lenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as time‑barred.

2. The appellant was employed as Mechanic in 1971 and was pro moted as a Foreman. His explanation was called but he failed to submit his reply and on this ground he was charge‑sheeted. After being charge- sheeted and holding an inquiry he was dismissed from service vide letter dated 16th September, 1980. The appellant presented an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore. The respondent raised a question of territorial jurisdiction. However, the case was transferred in routine alongwith some other cases by this Tribunal to Court No. 1. An order passed by this Tribunal was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court and the said Court directed Labour Court No. 1 to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction. The said Court returned the petition to the appellant for presentation to the competent Court of jurisdiction and the appellant presented the petition before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was made to the learned Labour Court No. 3 for the condonation of delay on the ground that the office of the Managing Director was in Lahore, therefore, the petition was presented in the beginning in Court No. 2. In cross‑examination the appellant said that it was possible that there was no office of the Managing Director at Lahore when the grievance petition had been presented to Labour Court No. 2. A witness examined by the respondent also testified that never the office of the Managing Director was at Lahore. The learned lower Court has held that as the very basis of the application given under section 5 of the Limitation Act stood unproved, therefore, there was no justification for the condonation of delay. In various letters sent by the respondent to the appellant the words "Post Box No. 1030, Lahore" were printed and these words appear to have misled the appellant in believing that the office of the Managing Director was situated at Lahore also. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the post boxes allotted by the Post Offices are situated in the Post Offices and that no office of the Managing Director was situated at Lahore, therefore, the period that elapsed between the date on which the grievance petition was initially presented in the Court No. 2, Lahore add the date on which it was presented to the learned Court No. 3 after having been returned to the appellant by Court No. 1, could not be condoned or ignored. The fact does not stand proved that the respondent has been allotted a Post Box at Lahore by the Post Office and that No. 1030 is of that Post Box, there fore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is without any basis. This is not such a fact that judicial notice may be taken of it. Even if it is said that the Managing Director has been allotted a Post Box by the Post Office, Lahore and the number of it is 1030, the fact remains that the mentioning of the Post Box number in the correspondence received by the appellant from the respondent was sufficient to lead the appellant to believe that the office of the respondent was at Lahore also. So under a bona fide mistaken belief the grievance petition was initially put in learned Court No. 2. Therefore, the time spent in the wrong Court can be condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appellant in his application for condonation of delay wrongly mentioned section 5 of the Limitation Act. The relevant section is 14. In section 65‑B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 section 14 is not mentioned because the same applies without being ' made applicable by any enactment.

3. As a result, of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the delay in presenting the petition is condoned and the case is remanded for decision on merits.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.