Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 3389 and 3390 of 1986, heard on 17th November, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Limitation‑‑Question of limitation raised in appeal during arguments‑‑Order passed by Tribunal without consideration of such important issue, held, suffered from grave illegality and could be removed through judicial review‑‑Impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Munawar Ahmad and Shahid Saleem for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Ch. M. Akram for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 17th November, 1986.

This order shall dispose of W.P. No. 3389 of 1986, and W.P. No. 3390 of 1986 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. It shall, however, remain on the file of W.P. No. 3389 of 1986.

2. Precisely put the facts are that the respondents in both the cases were serving with the National Construction Limited the petitioner herein and their services were terminated. This termination was called in question by them under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. through two separate grievance petitions which were partly accepted by the learned Labour Court on 15‑4‑1986. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners went in appeal and assailed the orders of the Labour Court on a number of grounds including the one that the grievance petitions were barred by time.

3. The learned Tribunal in its orders dated 17‑7‑1986, impugned in this writ petition, did not advert to the question of limitation but considered other points and upheld the decision of the Labour Court. Consequently, the appeals brought by the petitioners were dismissed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The order under challenge does not disclose that the question of limitation was argued before the learned Tribunal. However, Mr. Shahid Salim Advocate who represented the petitioner, before the Tribunal, has filed his affidavit that he specifically pointed out to the Tribunal that the grievance petition, was, barred by time but in the impugned order, his this contention has been ignored. There is no counter‑affidavit. The argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that the question of limitation was urged before the Tribunal, therefore, is entitled to weight.

5. The various submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, need not be enumerated, for argument which floats at the surface, is that the question of limitation having been raised in appeal, it was obligatory 1A for the Tribunal to have discussed and disposed of the same in accordance) with law. Needless to mention that the question of limitation is a vital issue and if the petitioner's plea is upheld, the grievance petitions shall be liable to be dismissed. It is axiomatic that when a Tribunal fails to advert to an important issue raised before it during argument, the order passed by it without consideration of such issue, suffers from a grave illegality and can be removed through judicial review. Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing for the respondent did not have much to defend the impugned order.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted, and the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently the petitioner's appeals shall be treated as pending. The learned Tribunal shall dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law and expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. The parties are left to bear their own costs and are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 3‑12‑1986.

S.Q./554/Lb Petition 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.