Pakistan Case LawATTA MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL. SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS, MULTAN
This appeal arises from an order of the Junior Labour Court dismissing the appellant's petition for reinstatement due to being time-barred. The appellant, an ex-watchman, was dismissed from service on 2nd April 1973. His departmental appeal was rejected on 10th July 1973, but he filed his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only on 28th May 1974. The appellant sought condonation of delay, claiming illiteracy and ignorance of legal obligations, which the lower court rejected. In this appeal, the appellant argued that a subsequent revision petition to the General Manager extended the limitation period. The Court found that the appellant's final communication to the department was a 'mercy petition' filed six months after the departmental appeal, not a revision petition provided for by departmental rules. The Court held that a mercy petition does not extend the statutory limitation period for filing a grievance petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that condoning the delay in these circumstances would constitute improper interference in the departmental jurisdiction of the Railway authorities.
- Does a mercy petition filed after a departmental appeal extend the limitation period for filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a court condone a delay in filing a grievance petition based solely on the petitioner's claim of illiteracy and ignorance of the law?
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by Atta Muhammad, Ex‑Watchman, P. W. R. Multan, against order dated, 9th December 1974, of the learned Junior Labour Court dismissing his petition for re‑instatement in service. The appellant was dismissed from service on 2nd April 1973 He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 10th July 1973. The petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed by the appellant on 28th May 1974. He filed an application on 26th November 1974 in the learned lower Court for the condonation of delay on the ground that as an illiterate person he was not aware of the obligations of law to move the Court in time which plea was rejected and his petition dismissed as time barred.
In the present appeal the facts mentioned above have not been contro verted. However, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that after the departmental appeal was decided against him, he filed a revision petition to the General Manager, P. W. R. which was provided under the departmental rule and as it was rejected vide letter of the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R. Multan, dated, 9th April 1974, the petition filed on 28th May 1974 was within time.
According to the relevant record the last petition of the appellant made to the department was not a revision petition but it was a mercy petition which was made over six months after the departmental appeal was dismissed. In such situation the condonation of delay could not be allowed to the appellant which if allowed would amount to an interference in departmental jurisdiction of the Railway authorities. The appeal therefore having no force is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Mian Qureshi66 judgments