MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE

DECISION

The circumstances culminating in this appeal are as follows:‑‑

The appellant was in the employ of the Railways since 1976 as a Carriage Cooly. It is alleged that in the month of June 1983 his mother had fallen seriously ill and having applied for one month's leave he had proceeded to his village. His mother could not recover from her illness and when he returned to resume his duties he did not receive wages for a number of months and was kept on the hope that the orders on his leave application were awaited from Lahore. It was in October 1983 that he was told that he had been dismissed from service for misconduct and that was without any charge‑sheet, enquiry or dismissal order in writing.

2. He states to have filed a departmental appeal to the respondent No. 2 on 12‑11‑1983 by registered post and he had not been favoured with reply for all these years. Later he had sent the grievance notice on 4‑2‑1990 by registered post which has again not been replied to. He had therefore filed the petition before the Labour Court.

3. The respondents in their Written Reply apart from assailing the maintainability of the petition also alleged that it was barred by time. Their case was that the petitioner had never applied for leave and had been an absconder from duty with effect from 14‑9‑1982. He had also never produced any sickness Certificate of his mother. It went on to say that a show‑cause notice dated 6‑4‑1983 was despatched at his address and since he failed to appear, there was a publication in the daily Newspapers dated 19‑5‑1983. Since the Petitioner failed to turn up on the due date, ex parte proceedings were held against him on 21‑6‑1983 and he was dismissed from service. He had never filed any departmental appeal and had preferred the petition before the Labour Court, seven years later i.e. in 1990. The appeal was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

4. The appellant was his own witness and one Atta Muhammad appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5. The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the short ground that it was barred by time.

6. Admittedly the appellant had not been paid his wages since June 1983 and knew of his dismissal the same year. He states to have filed a departmental appeal. But surprisingly it is addressed to the Divisional Superintendent Sukkur the very person who had passed the order of dismissal. Even the stamp on the postal receipt on the record is very dim and does not indicate the date at all. Even the paper appears to be fresh. It appears to be an afterthought.

7. Mr. Tauqir Hassan learned counsel for the appellant however maintained that the bar of limitation does not arise in cases of void orders and has referred to the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Abdul Rasheed and others 1983 SCMR 168.

8. Apart from the question as to whether the impugned order in question will be void, even this authority is to the effect that it does not enable a petitioner to circumvent the provisions of a statute of limitation.

9. The question of Limitation under section 25-A of the I.R.O has to be rigidly construed. uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2124/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.