PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL GHAFFAR NIAZI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the employer, Punjab Road Transport Board, against the Lahore High Court judgment dated 8-6-1983, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's challenge to the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal orders directing the reinstatement of the respondent employee. The core legal question concerned the validity of the respondent's termination from service after he obtained a fresh conductor's licence following the cancellation of his previous licence due to a conviction for receiving fare without issuing tickets. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time by 82 days with no application or explanation for condonation, and further noted that the High Court had already left open an avenue for the petitioner to seek the cancellation of the respondent's fresh licence on the stated grounds. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that petitions filed beyond the prescribed period without adequate explanation or an application for condonation are time-barred.
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without an application or explanation for condonation can be entertained?
- Does the possession of a fresh conductor's licence preclude an employer from terminating an employee's services when the previous licence was cancelled for misconduct?
- Can leave to appeal be refused when alternative legal avenues remain available to the petitioner?
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner being the employer seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 8-6-1983 whereby the order of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the dismissal of the respondent from service and directing his re- instatement, was dismissed in limine.
2. ' The respondent was an employee of the petitioner. He was convicted for receiving fare without issuing tickets and was sentenced to a petty fine and his conductor's licence was cancelled. He thereafter obtained a fresh conductor's licence from D. S. P. (Traffic), Licensing Authority. The petitioner considered the fresh licence not to be a valid one for the reason that he had not disclosed while obtaining it that the earlier licence had been cancelled for a misconduct. The Labour Court directed that the re-instatement of the respondent which order as was upheld by the Appellate Authority on the ground that as he was possessed of a valid conductor's licence, his services could not be terminated. The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but failed.
3. The petition is shown to be barred by 82 days. There is no application seeking condonation of the delay. There is no explanation available for the delay. The petition is, therefore, clearly time-barred and there is no justification for condonation of delay. Even otherwise we find that by the impugned order, the High Court has left open an avenue for the petitioner and it is of getting the respondent's fresh licence cancelled on the grounds stated. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused.