SYED AKHLAQ AHMED, J. - Through this writ, Rizam Gul/petitioner wants this Court to set aside the impugned judgment dated 4.2:2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour;Gourt, Rawalpindi with the further prayer to direct respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to calculate and disburse the gratuity to the petitioner for his entire 21 years of service.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner challenged his resignation from service dated 27.12.2002 by filing a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court, Rawalpindi/respondent No. T. Vide order dated 24.11.2005 while declining the reinstatement of the .Petitioner, the Labour Court ordered that the prayer of the petitioner for payment of gratuity and other dues be reconsidered and paid under the Standing Order 12(6) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which he is found to be entitled after proper scrutiny of documents. The petitioner waited for a considerable time for payment. Since respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not implement the orders of the Labour Court, he was obliged to file application for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the Labour Court on 25.7.2006 which was decided by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on 4.2.2009 whereby the contempt application was dismissed, it was held that since Provident Fund for a specific period has been paid to the petitioner, therefore, his claim for gratuity for the same period is devoid of any legal force.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contended this writ by filing their reply and parawise comments stating that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was reconstituted u/S. 55 of I.R.A., 2008 enacted on 15.12.2008. U/S. 54(3), an appeal lies before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal against any decision given by a Labour Court under I.R.A., 2008. The petitioner filed the titled petition on or about 24.8.2009 when the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was admittedly in existence and functional to entertain appeals under I.R.A., 2008. The contents of the writ petition involves load of disputed facts which cannot be resolved without recording evidence of the parties. The titled writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. This Court is under legal mandate to determine its jurisdiction before adverting to the facts which in any case have no merits. On facts, averment of the writ petition as set out by the petitioner are not admitted, it is asserted that the judgment dated 4.2.2009 of the learned Labour Court, Rawalpindi is a speaking judgment strictly based on the existing law. Hence, it cannot be challenged by the petitioner on frivolous and baseless grounds, it is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed being not maintainable under the law and having no merits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while deciding the grievance petition of the petitioner on merits, it was held by the learned Labour Court that against more than twenty years of service of the petitioner, he was given gratuity only for two years and the grievance of the petitioner to that extent was true, it was directed that within the meaning of Section 46(4) of I.R.A., 2008, the payment of gratuity to the petitioner be considered by the respondents under Standing Order 12(2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It was further directed that any dues to which the. Petitioner-was found entitled, after scrutiny, should also be paid to him. However, through the impugned judgment dated 4,2.2009. Labour Court has reviewed its earliep judgment by holding that the petitioner was not entitled for any gratuity under the law.
It is argued that the Labour Court cannot review its earlier judgment, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 4.2.2009 is illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on the record.
6. Razim Gul petitioner filed the above titled writ petition before this Court on 17.9.2009. At that time, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was admittedly in existence and was functional to entertain appeals under I. R.A., 2008. U/S. 54(3) an appeal lies before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal against any decision given by a Labour Court under I.R.A., 2008.
The only course open to the petitioner was to file appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in the first instance as required u/S. 54(3) under I.R.A., 2008 and thereafter he can approach this Court if felt aggrieved of the decision of the said Court.
7. As the petitioner has not resorted to the legal recourse, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.