LYALLPUR CHEMICAL & FERTILIZERS LTD vs PUNJABLABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine a constitutional petition filed by an employer. The dispute originated from a labour matter where the Labour Appellate Tribunal had ruled in favour of the employee, finding that the employee had not signed the resignation letter submitted by the employer and condoning the delay in filing the employee's grievance before the Labour Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the signature and the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the signature were unexceptionable and that the Tribunal possessed the requisite authority to review and overturn the Labour Court's findings concerning the delay. Consequently, the Court found no legal error or violation of principle in the Tribunal's approach, determining that the petition lacked merit and dismissing it accordingly.
- Does a Labour Appellate Tribunal have the authority to overturn a Labour Court's finding regarding the condonation of delay?
- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a Labour Appellate Tribunal in its writ jurisdiction?
- Is the condonation of delay in filing a grievance petition a matter within the discretionary field of the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 1-2-1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitutional petition arising out of a labour matter, was dismissed in limine The plea taken before the High Court on the petitioner's (employer) side was that the finding by the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the respondent No. 3 had not signed his resignation was not correct-; and that in any case it should not have condoned the delay in the filing of the said respondent's grievance, with the Labour Court. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi v. Water & Power Development Authority and another (PLD 1982 SC 139).
2. The finding of fact about signatures was held by the High Court to be unexceptionable and regarding condonation of delay it was observed that the appellate decision fell within the discretionary field.
3. Same arguments have been repeated before us with a little more vehe--mence; but we are unable to differ with the approach of the learned Judge of the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
4. The Tribunal has not violated any law or principle with regard to the findings of fact on the question of signatures. The case cited by the learned counsel on question of condonation of delay by an appellate forum, relate to a distinguishable restricted jurisdiction, hence it is of no help to him. The appellate tribunal in this matter had full power to upset the finding of the labour Court on the question of delay.
5. The petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.