' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Petitioner, through the instant petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against order dated 15-12- 2008, whereby the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan allowed respondent-Bank's appeal (F.A.O. No,102/L of 2008) and set aside judgment dated 28-2-2008 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan.
2. The petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 against respondent-Bank, before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan with the prayer that letter dated 21-5-2005 be set aside and the respondent-Bank be directed to calculate his pensionary benefits on the basis of last drawn basic pay i,e,, 23-4-2005 and that period of his service be treated as 32 years instead of 31 years along with all back-benefits. The respondent-Bank contested the petition and the learned Labour Court .After recording evidence of the parties accepted his petition` in the terms stated in the grievance petition, vide judgment dated 28-2-2008. The . Respondent-Bank tiled the appeal challenging the said judgment, which Was allowed by the learned Lahore High Court, .Multan Bench, Multan, vide impugned order dated 15-12-2008, as noted above, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised a preliminary objection that present petition tiled under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is not maintainable, as the petitioner claimed the amount of back benefits to the tune of Rs,8,38,000 and that the judgment passed by the Labour. Court was varied by the learned High Court, therefore, only the appeal was competent under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the said contentions and stated that since the petitioner challenged the validity of letter dated 21-5-2005 up to the extent of calculating pensionary benefits towards retirement, therefore, the present petition was competent.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. It flows from plain reading of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution that for determining the question as to whether appeal or petition would be competent, amount or value of subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance should not be less than Rs,50,000 and the judgment, decree and order appealed from was varied or set aside by the Court immediately below. In the instant case, admittedly, the judgment rendered by the Labour Court (original court) was varied and set aside by the learned High Court and the petitioner claimed pensionary benefits- amounting to Rs,8,38,000, which was the subject-matter in dispute in the Court of first instance, therefore, we are of the view that present petition in view of Article. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was barred and only the appeal was competent.
5. We were inclined to convert this petition into appeal, however, found that the petition was not filed within a period of 30 days and if we now convert the same into appeal it would, become barred by time. It may be noted that the petitioner has neither tiled any application for conversion of this petition into appeal nor for condonation of delay. In view whereof, there is no sufficient cause before us for conversion of the petition into appeal or for condonation of delay.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition being incompetent and untenable stands dismissed.