SHER ALAM Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISAN
This matter arises from a petition filed by Sher Alam against the Government of Balochistan concerning service matters, specifically challenging the change of cadre and subsequent promotion of a co-employee, respondent No.4, which occurred over eighteen years prior. The core legal questions involve whether a belated challenge to a long-standing cadre change and promotion can be entertained under labour laws, and whether such a claim is barred by limitation and the principle of laches. The Federal Constitutional Court held that concurrent findings of the forums below were justified, as the grievance petition was filed with an inordinate delay of eighteen years without any application for condonation of delay, thereby violating the limitation period prescribed by statute. The key principle laid down is that stale claims challenging administrative or service orders passed decades prior, lacking proof of forgery and hit by statutory limitation periods and laches, warrant no interference by superior courts.
- Whether a grievance petition challenging a cadre change made nearly two decades prior is barred by limitation?
- Can a belated service claim be entertained without an application for condonation of delay?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower judicial forums regarding the dismissal of a time-barred petition warrant interference by the apex court?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 41(1), Balochistan Industrial Relations Act 2010
SYED ARSHAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Heard the petitioner in person and perused the record, which reveals that respondent No.4 was appointed in the Municipal Committee, Loralai as Sanitary Worker in the year 1993, his cadre was changed from Sanitary Worker to Valve Man vide order dated 6.1.2000 and was promoted to the post of Pipe Fitter on 28.8.2017. The petitioner, who was appointed as Valve Man in the year 2008, filed an application before the Ombudsman against the order dated 28.8.2017, which was later on withdrawn and a grievance petition was filed before the 5th Labour Court Balochistan on 27.9.2018. Upon dismissal of his grievance petition, the petitioner filed appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Quetta, which was too withdrawn in order to file fresh grievance petition.
2. In the second round of litigation, the petitioner questioned the validity of the order dated 6.1.2000, whereby cadre of respondent No.4 was changed as well as his promotion order dated 28.8.2017 before the 5th Labour Court at Loralai through Labour Case No.03/019, which was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. being barred by time vide order dated 17.3.2021. Appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal also failed. Operative part from the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21.9.2021 is reproduced below:-
The claim of appellant that the Order dated 6.1.2000 regarding change of cadre of respondent No.4 as illegal cannot be discussed at this stage since the appeal is badly hit by the provisions of limitation and there is also no evidence showing that the Order dated 6.1.2000 is bogus or made recently by respondent No.4. Since the appeal is barred by time, therefore, there is no need to go into the merits of the case and the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application of the appellant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. as same Order dated 6.1.2000 is challenged which has already been dismissed by the Trial Court, therefore, by upholding the Order dated 17.3.2021 passed by the Trial Court, appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. .
3. Learned Division Bench of the High Court has thoroughly examined the claim of the petitioner and dismissed his petition for valid and cogent reason. For the sake of ease, relevant paragraph from the judgment of the High Court is reproduced below:-
10. Admittedly, during trial before the respondent No.5, the petitioner has failed to bring on record any such evidence to prove that the order dated 06.01.2000 was issued with fake signatures and forgery. Be that as it may, the record also shows that vide order No.44/Estt: Dated 06.01.2000, the cadre of respondent No.4 has been changed from the post of Sanitary Worker to the Post of Valve Man, whereas, the petitioner had filed by [the] petition before the respondent No.5 on 12.10.2018. It is also apparent on the fact [face] of the record that no application for condonation of delay had been filed with the petition, as the petition had been filed with delay of 18 years, whereas, Section 41(1) of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, provides only three months for filing of grievance petition, thus, the case of petitioner was hit by the principle of latches and the forums below have rightly dismissed the petition and appeal of petitioner. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the forums below, warranting interference by this Court. .
4. There being concurrent findings of all the fora below in two rounds of litigation, we see no reason for interference. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed and leave is refused.
UN/36/FCC Petition dismissed.