SHAHID IQBAL vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of the dismissal of the petitioner's grievance petition filed under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution, followed by the dismissal of a restoration application and a subsequent appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal due to unexplained delay. The core legal questions relate to whether illness and the shifting of court premises constitute sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay and the restoration of a dismissed grievance petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that uncorroborated illness and the relocation of court premises do not justify a delay without explaining each day's delay, and that law aids the vigilant and not the indolent. The key principles laid down are that illness per se is insufficient for condonation of delay without medical corroboration, and a party seeking condonation must explain the delay of each and every day.
- Whether illness per se constitutes a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without medical corroboration?
- Does the shifting of court premises furnish a valid legal ground for failing to file a restoration application within time?
- Is an applicant seeking condonation of delay required to explain the delay of each and every day?
- Whether a grievance petition dismissed for non-prosecution can be restored without establishing sufficient grounds?
- Section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance
- Section 5, Limitation Act
- Article 199, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.--- The petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against an order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent No,2 which was dismissed on 11-7-2008 for non-prosecution. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an application for restoration of the petition and also appended with it an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In the application moved for restoration of the petition it was stated that the petitioner fell ill and was also hampered in his efforts due to the fact that the premises of the Labour Court had been shifted from one place to another.
2. Application seeking restoration was dismissed by Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, on 1-4-2009, on the ground that there were no sufficient grounds for restoration of the grievance petition.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal on 5-6-2009 before respondent No,1 which was also dismissed by order dated 4-9-2009 on the ground that the appellant/petitioner had filed an application for restoration of the grievance petition before Labour Court on 17-2-2009 after a period of more than seven months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has argued that the petitioner fell ill, the Labour Court shifted its premises and as such there existed good grounds for condensation of delay.
5. After hearing the arguments addressed by learned counsel for petitioner and going through the record it can safely be concluded that there were no grounds for setting aside order dated 11-7- 2008 of the Labour Court, wherein, the grievance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner in his application seeking restoration of his grievance petition has neither mentioned the nature of his illness nor appended any medical certificate by a doctor to corroborate the same.
The second ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Labour Court had shifted its premises, it was not possible for him to have filed an application seeking restoration of his grievance petition in time is also not tenable in law. It is trite law that a petition which is dismissed for non-prosecution can only be restored if there exist "sufficient grounds" which would warrant its restoration. The apex Court in Sahib Khan and others v. Ghulam Dastgir and others 1980 SCMR 561(1) has held that any delay which is occasioned on account of the petitioner falling ill per se is not a good ground for condonation of delay. In any case, the petitioner had to explain delay of each and every day as held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Commissioner of Income Tax, v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCM R 37 which admittedly has not been done.
6. The respondent No,1 in the impugned order dated 4-9-2009 has rightly concluded that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent and that there were no valid grounds for restoration of the petition.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 3 cases
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Hala Spinning Limited, Lahore 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 639
- DAILY KHABRAIN through Chief Editor/Chief Executive vs HAMMAD HASSAN 2013 PLC 300
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Sher Akbar Khan Work Force 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1321