Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No.103 of 1987, decided on
‑‑‑Ss.15 & 17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑Delay‑‑Laches‑‑Appeal against judgment of Authority dismissed by Labour Court on 28‑11‑1983 and Constitutional petition filed on 10‑12‑1986, after expiry of more than three years‑‑No ground, whatsoever, shown explaining inordinate delay in challenging impugned orders in High Court and petitioner found to be negligent in pursuing his remedy‑‑Litigant sleeping over his right, whether a private individual or a Government Department, must suffer for his negligent act‑‑Courts could not come to rescue of negligent litigant‑‑Where petitioner did not cautiously and carefully pursue his remedy in Court of law and apparently he had lost his interest in prosecution of the case, Constitutional petition, held, could not be entertained after expiry of such a long time.
Sabir Ahmad Chaudhry v.
Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner.
The petitioner, Divisional Superintendent Railways, has moved this Constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the judgment dated 28‑11‑1983 passed by the Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, and the judgment dated 30‑1‑1983, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sargodha, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, passed the impugned order on 28‑11‑1983 whereby it was held that the writ petition did not fulfil the requirements of law for filing the appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and further that certificate of deposit of decretal amount was not annexed with the grounds of appeal and court‑fee was not paid in the appeal. In view of this, the appeal of the writ‑petitioner was dismissed.
3. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that the last impugned order in the case was passed as far back as on 28‑11‑1983, whereas the instant writ petition was filed by him in the High Court on 10‑12‑1986, after the expiry of more than three years. It was also pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant writ petition suffers from laches and delay, inasmuch as no plausible explanation has been given in the body of the writ petition. The learned counsel has wholly failed to convince me as to why he has challenged the impugned orders in the High Court so late. I have gone through the writ petition and I do not find any ground whatsoever explaining this inordinate delay in challenging the impugned orders in the High Court. This being so, in my considered view, the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his remedy and he has not been able to give reasonable explanation for filing the petition after considerable delay. A litigant who is sleeping over his right whether he is a private individual or a Government Department, must suffer for his negligent act. Of course the Courts cannot come to the rescue of the negligent litigant. It is proved on the record that the petitioner did not cautiously and carefully pursue his remedy in the Court of law and it appears from the record that he had lost his interest in the prosecution of the case. The writ petition cannot be entertained after the expiry of such a long time and has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Sabir Ahmad Chaudhry v.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
S.Q. /D‑14/L
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer