AFZAL RIAZ Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

The appeals captioned above emerge from the orders dated 18‑6‑1985 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed. Since common questions of facts are involved in the appeals, both of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The facts of the cases are that on 13‑12‑1981 Muhammad Fazil appellant was reverted from the post of Ticket Examiner to the post of Junior Clerk Traffic and Muhammad Afzal Riaz was reverted from the post of T.E. to the post of Time Keeper. Both of them brought grievance petitions against their reversion. During the pendency of the petitions the orders dated 13‑12‑1981 whereby the appellants had been reverted were revised vide order dated 29‑5‑1985 treating the reversion as in implementation of the decision of learned Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore dated 22‑1‑1978. The ground was that since the appellants had been promoted as Ticket Examiner from ex‑cadre posts they were hit by the decision of the learned Labour Court No.l, Lahore dated 22‑1‑1978. The learned lower Court had before dismissing the grievance petitions of the appellants recorded statement of Mr. Khalid Ahmed counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, no opportunity was given to the appellants either to prove that the appellants had been promoted from the ex‑cadre post or otherwise and without hearing arguments the petitions were dismissed. The case of the appellants is that they were not promoted as T.E. from ex‑cadre post, therefore, they were not hit by the decision of the learned Punjab Labour Court No.l Lahore dated 22‑1‑1987. Since no opportunity was given to the appellants to show that they were not promoted from ex‑cadre post, they have been prejudiced by the impugned order. On the file there is no statement of the appellants and their counsel that no evidence was to be produced against the statement of Mr. Khalid Ahmed counsel for the respondents and no arguments were to be led. This is a question of fact whether the appellants had been promoted as T.E. from ex‑cadre post or from the same cadre. Therefore, unless opportunity had been given to the appellants to prove their case the petitions could not be treated as having become infructuous.

3. The appeals are time‑barred and applications for condonation of delay have been given duly supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Asmat Kamal Khan, Advocate. The ground is that the learned counsel suddenly fell ill on 25‑2‑1987 while working in the learned Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore and recovered on 3‑3‑1987 when the appeals were lodged. Counter‑affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent but it does not controvert the affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not said in the counter‑affidavit that the learned counsel for the appellants did not suddenly fall ill or that he had been appearing in the Courts from 25‑2‑1987 to 2‑3‑1987. Since the appellants had engaged Mr.Asmat Kamal Khan, Advocate to lodge the appeals, the appellants did not file the appeals themselves. Sufficient grounds for condonation of delay have been put forward and I am inclined to condone the delay.

4. As a result of what has been said above, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions the cases area remanded for redecision after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence on the main case, as well as, on the point whether the petitions have become infructuous.

A. E. /357/Lb.P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals accepted.