Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No.3560 of 1985, decided on 1st December, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, invoking of‑‑Grievance petition against termination filed beyond period of limitation‑‑While condoning delay, Labour Court ordered re‑instatement of employee which was set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Condonation of delay by Labour Court on ground that technicalities should not stand in way of poor workers being not sufficient ground for such condonation, held, could not be sustained‑‑No explanation having been put forward for condonation of delay, Labour Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing dismissal of grievance petition on ground of limitation‑‑Order of Appellate Tribunal being based on cogent reasons would not justify interference in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Khalid Farooq Qureshi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 1985.
The petitioners were employed in the Standard Steel Rolling Mills, Badami Bagh, Lahore, but their services were terminated on different dates between February and May, 1983.
They challenged their terminations under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in Punjab Labour Court No. 2 Lahore. The Presiding officer accepted the petitions and directed their re‑instatement, vide his order, dated 4‑5‑1985. The employer challenged the orders in appeal and urged that the grievance petitions deserved to be dismissed on ground of limitation. The learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention and allowed the appeal and directed the dismissal of the grievance petitions on ground of limitation. The employees have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and have challenged the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal of 1‑8‑1985.
2. It is not denied that the grievance petitions which were filed on different dates were filed after the period prescribed and for that I purpose they had asked the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned by the Labour Court on the ground that technicalities should not stand in the way of the poor workers. The Appellate Tribunal, however, found that it was not a sufficient ground for condoning delay. The case for condonation of delay made out by the employees was that they had taken up the matter with the Labour Department who had actually asked for the intervention of the Labour Court for proceeding against the employer for unfair labour practice. The record, however, shows that the application of the Labour Department had already been dismissed when the petitioners applied for being impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The application for being impleaded as parties was dismissed on 27‑6‑19831 and the petitioners were advised to move the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This order was passed on 27‑6‑1983, but the petitioners did not choose to move in the matter until middle of August, 1983. There is no explanation for this further delay on the part of the petitioners. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, justified in accepting the appeal and directing the dismissal of the grievance petitions on ground of limitation.
3. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer