MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs ALLIED BANK LIMITED
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Lahore High Court order that set aside a Labour Court judgment regarding the calculation of the petitioner's pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the petition was maintainable under Article 185(3) or if the petitioner was required to file an appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution, given that the subject matter of the dispute exceeded Rs. 50,000 and the High Court had varied the original judgment. The Supreme Court held that because the value of the subject matter in the court of first instance exceeded the statutory threshold and the High Court had set aside the original judgment, the petition was incompetent under Article 185(3) and an appeal under Article 185(2)(d) was the exclusive remedy. Furthermore, the Court declined to convert the petition into an appeal because it was time-barred and no application for condonation of delay was filed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as untenable.
- Is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution maintainable when the subject matter of the dispute exceeds Rs. 50,000 and the High Court has varied the original judgment?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal if the filing is time-barred and no application for condonation of delay is submitted?
- Does the variation of a Labour Court judgment by the High Court trigger the appellate jurisdiction under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Article 185(2)(d), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
ORDER
' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Petitioner, through the instant petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against order dated 15.12.2008, whereby the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan allowed respondent- Bank's appeal (FAO No: 102/L of 2008) and set aside judgment dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan.
2. The petitioner filed a grievance petition under Section 46 of Industrial 'Relations Ordinance, 2002 against respondent-Bank, before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan with the prayer that letter dated 21:5.2005 be set aside and the respondent-Bank be directed to calculate his pensionary benefits on the basis of last drawn basic pay i.e, 23.4.2005 and that period of his service be treated as 32 years instead of 31 years alongwith all back benefits. The respondent-Bank contested the petition and the learned Labour Court after recording evidence of the parties accepted his petition in the terms stated in the grievance petition, vide judgment dated 28.2.2008. The respondent-Bank filed the appeal challenging the said judgment, which was allowed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.2008, as noted above. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised preliminary objection that present petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is not maintainable, as the petitioner claimed the amount of back benefits to the tune of Rs, 8,38,000/- and that the judgment passed by the Labour Court was varied by the learned High Court, therefore, only the appeal was competent under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the said contentions and stated that since the petitioner challenged the validity of letter dated 21.5.2005 upto the extent of calculating pensionary benefits towards retirement, therefore, the present petition was competent.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties andexamined the available record. It flows from plain reading of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution that for determining the question as to whether appeal or petition would be competent, amount or value of subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance should not be less than Rs, 50,000/- and the judgment, decree and order appealed from was varied or set aside by the Court immediately below. In the instant case, admittedly, the judgment rendered by the Labour Court (original Court) was varied and set aside by the learned High Court and the petitioner claimed pensionary benefits amounting to Rs, 8,38,000/-, which was the subject-matter in dispute in the Court of first instance, therefore, we are of the view that present petition in view of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was barred and only the appeal was competent.
5. We were inclined to convert this petition into appeal, however, found that the petition was not filed within a period of 30 days and if we now convert the same into appeal it would become barred, by time. It may be noted that the petitioner has neither filed any application for conversion of this petition into appeal nor for condonation of delay. In view whereof, there is no sufficient cause before us for conversion of the petition into appeal or for condonation of delay.
9. For the foregoing reasons. The present petition being incompetent and untenable stands dismissed.