Messrs HILALEPAKISTAN PUBLISHERS vs SIND LABOUR COURT No, 1 and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The employee, respondent No. 3, had been reinstated by the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioner's appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and a subsequent restoration application was also rejected. The petitioner then challenged these proceedings in the High Court, primarily arguing that the original application under section 25-A was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, noting that the petitioner had failed to raise the issue of limitation before the Labour Court and had not properly challenged the Labour Court's initial order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the contention that relief was unjustifiably denied. The Court affirmed that a party cannot raise a plea of limitation for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was not agitated before the original forum of competent jurisdiction.
- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was not agitated before the original forum?
- Does the failure to challenge an initial order of a Labour Court preclude a party from challenging subsequent appellate orders on grounds not raised earlier?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of a Labour Appellate Tribunal where the petitioner failed to raise the issue of limitation before the Labour Court?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--G.N. Bazmi, respondent No, 3, was in the employment of the petitioner when his service was terminated on 10th April, 1976. On his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of respondent No, 3 with back benefits.
2. The petitioner then challenged the order of the Labour Court in an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27th November, 1980. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration of the appeal which was also dismissed for insufficiency of grounds urged.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal in a Constitutional petition, mainly on the ground that respondent No, 3's petition under section 25-A was time-barred. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Sind High Court, held, that as the petitioner had not challenged the order of the Labour Court before whom the question of limitation was not even otherwise raised, the Constitutional petition was not in proper form. Additionally they were of the view that the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was indeed the subject-matter of challenge before them did not suffer from any infirmity of jurisdiction. Accordingly they dismissed the Constitutional petition by their judgment dated 10th December, 1987.
4. In seeking leave to appeal it is mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel that although the learned Judges of the Division Bench found the petition of respondent No, 3 under section 25-A to be barred by limitation, they unjustifiably refused relief to the petitioner.
We find no force in this contention and are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court is based upon valid reasons inasmuch as the petitioner itself did not challenge the order of the Labour Court and had not raised the point of limitation before the Labour Court. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.