1. ' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.--- By virtue of this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the vires of order dated 24-1-2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,V, Sargodha whereby the Grievance Petition, filed by respondents Nos.1 to 213, was accepted as well as that of order dated 4- 4-2012 passed by the Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore by means whereof, while upholding the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,V, Sargodha, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts, forming background of this petition, are that respondents Nos.1 to 213 filed Grievance Petition (bearing No, Lab/5-98/2010) under section 41 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008, before the Punjab Labour Court No,V, Sargodha for declaring them to be regular workers of Tehsil Municipal Administration, Isa Khel District Mianwali w,e,f, 1-7-2002. As neither anybody appeared on behalf of Tehsil Municipal Administration Isa Khel nor filed reply to the Grievance Petition ex parte proceedings were initiated against it. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,V, Lahore accepted the Grievance Petition vide judgment, dated 24-1-2011.
2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed vide order dated 4-4-2012; hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, while passing the impugned judgments, both the forums below have not taken into consideration that the Grievance Petition was not properly constituted inasmuch as the same did not bear the signatures of respondents Nos.1 to 213 rather the same was signed by the President, Punjab Workers Union, CBA TMA, District Mianwali; that at the time of filing of Grievance Petition, the Punjab Workers Union, being not CBA, its Chairman was not competent to sign the same; that no grievance notice was given to the petitioner as postulated under Industrial Relations Act, 2008 and no witness was examined by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,V, Sargodha qua the service of the said notice on the petitioner; that the petitioner was condemned unheard as no chance was given to file reply to the Grievance Petition rather it was proceeded against ex parte in a slipshod manner; that the petitioner was not arrayed as respondent in the Grievance Petition, therefore, order of ex parte proceedings against him, was of no consequence; that while passing the impugned orders, both the forums below have not considered that the National Exchequer has been burdened with colossal expenditures; that respondents Nos.1 to 213 were serving the department on work-charge basis and their services have illegally been regularized by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,V, Sargodha; that according to the Recruitment Policy no person can be appointed against regular seat without advertisement in the National press but the services of respondents Nos.1 to 213 have been illegally regularized; that respondents Nos.1 to 213 having been appointed on different dates, joint Grievance Petition was not maintainable on their behalf; that since respondents Nos.1 to 213 were appointed only for 89 days, their services could not be regularized by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,V, Sargodha; that provisions of Industrial Regulations Act, 2008 have been misapplied in the case of petitioner as the same is not an "industry" as postulated in the Act ibid; that. Since 'respondents Nos.1 to 213 are governed by the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Service) Rules, 1997, the provisions of Standing Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to them; even though respondents Nose 1 to 213 did not file an appeal as envisaged under Rule 12 of the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Service) Rules, 1997, the Grievance Petition filed by, them was not competent and that Punjab Worker Union being not Trade Union of Isa Khel its President was not competent to file Grievance Petition on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 213.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with this petition, I am of the view that this case is classical picture of lethargic attitude on behalf of the State functionaries its pursuing the matters pending against them before different forums. In the present case Grievance Petition was filed against the petitioner on 13-4-2010. Pursuant to notice, one Ameer Abdullah appeared on behalf of the petitioner and sought time to file reply to the Grievance Petition but the same was not filed till 28-9-2010. As nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 28-9-2010, ex parte proceedings were initiated against it. A perusal of judgment, passed by the Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore shows sluggish attitude on the part of the petitioner inasmuch, as it did not bother to file reply to the Grievance Petition despite availing nine (9) dates for the said purpose.
3. ' Moreover, with a view to arrive at a just conclusion, the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,V, Lahore examined Mr. Ameer Mukhtar Hussain, Tehsil Municipal Officer, TMA, Isa Khel as CW-1. During his examination-in-chief, the said witness covenanted that he supports the regularization of the services of the grievance petitioners. Further, he did not produce any document in support of his version that the respondents were working with the petitioner on work-charge basis. This being the position, the plea of the petitioner that it was condemned unheard does not hold ground. Insofar as the petitioner's contention that the Grievance Petition was not properly constituted, I am of the considered view that the President of the Punjab Workers Union being representative of respondents Nos.1 to 213 was competent to sign Grievance Petition on their behalf. Even otherwise as no objection was taken before the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,V, Sargodha, the petitioner cannot be given the liberty to take such objection in this constitutional petition. Further, non-signing of pleadings by any party does not impede the way of justice. While dealing with somewhat similar proposition the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as KATHIAWAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. MACCA MASJID TRUST and others (2009 SCM R 574) held that-- "**** In this view of the matter and in the light of the provisions of Order XXIX, rule 1 of the C.P.C., where no specific objection has been taken by the respondent regarding the competency of the person, who signed and verified the plaint to do so either in the written statement or in the evidence produced before the learned Civil Court, this can hardly be done at the appellate stage.
4. Indeed, where such an objection had been taken, it could very well have been rectified by the appellant by producing the requisite authority for Mr. Chottani to sign and verify the plaint, since per settled law, this is a mere irregularity which can be set right and cannot be the basis of non- suiting a litigant."
5. ' The said view was also fortified in the cases of "Chaudhry Muhammad Munir and others v. Election Tribunal, Mandi Bahauddin and others" (2009 SCM R 1368) and "Mst. JANNA T BIBI v. SARAS KHAN"
6. (2011 SCM R 1460).
7. ' Even otherwise it has been settled by now that signing of the ,pleadings by one person on his behalf as well on behalf of other co-parties fulfill the criteria laid down in Order VI, rule 14, C.P.C. In the present the case, the signatory of the Grievance Petition is representative of the other petitioners being. President of the CBA Union. Further, according to section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, any collective bargaining agent or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement. The question of signing of pleadings by one person on his behalf as well as on behalf of others was exquisitely dealt with by this court in the case of "Muhammad Shafi Shaikh v. Ghulam Muhammad" (1980 CLC 1150) wherein it has inter alia been held that:--- "The reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller were that since the reply of the respondents to the ejectment application was already on the record, his order requiring them to file the said reply was misconceived and that non-payment of costs did not constitute a valid ground for passing the order impugned before him.
8. ' As for the filing of the reply in regard to the ejectment petition, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the reply which was already on the record was put in by Abdul Hamid, who was one of the respondents in the original case, and not by Ghulam Muhammad who was the other respondent. I have looked at the aforesaid reply and find that it has been signed by Abdul Hamid as follows :--- {{ URDU TEXT }} ' This shows that Abdul Hamid signed both for himself as well as for Ghulam Muhammad. Both of them were represented by a common counsel, namely, Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate. Thus some sort of reply was there on the record on behalf of both the respondents and, therefore no serious exception can be taken to the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that since a reply of Ghulam Muhammad respondent was already on the record, the' learned Rent Controller had erred in directing him to file his reply again."
9. ' From the above it is clear that since the Grievance Petition was signed by the President, Punjab Workers Union, TMA, Isa Khel in the capacity of the representative of respondents Nos.1 to 213, therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner at this belated stage is not tenable.
10. ' Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that no grievance notice, as postulated under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, was given to the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to observe that despite repeated queries by this court, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to take a clear cut stand on this point rather he tried to avoid the question by saying that no evidence in this regard is available on the file. If the said question was not raised before the Labour Court the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunas of its case in this petition.
11. ' Now coming to the petitioner's plea that it was not arrayed as respondent in the Grievance Petition, the order of ex parte proceedings against it was of no consequence, I am constrained to observe that perhaps learned counsel for the petitioner has not properly gone through the contents of the Grievance Petition inasmuch as the name of the petitioner is available in the array of respondents at page 4 of the Grievance Petition. Considering from another angle, if the petitioner was not party to the Grievance Petition how its representative appeared before the Labour Court concerned, on 27-4-2010 and sought time to file reply thereto. Further, the Tehsil Municipal Officer concerned while appearing as CW-1 did not raise such plea. Thus, the entire material documents attached by the petitioner itself along with this petition negates the stance of the petitioner.
12. ' As far as the petitioner's stance that as a result of the impugned judgments, the National Exchequer has been burdened with unbearable expenses is concerned, it is observed with heavy heart that the petitioner, which did not opt even to join the proceedings before the. Labour Court, has awakened from a long slumber to aver that National Exchequer is being burdened unnecessarily. This shows the pathetic picture of the government functionaries to pursue the matters pending against different government institutions. Even otherwise, it is not duty of the courts to see as to whether the National Exchequer is being burdened or not rather their prime duty is to decide the lis between parties, irrespective of the fact whether it is government or private person, on the basis of the material available on the file.
13. ' Now coming to the petitioner's objection that respondents Nos.1 to 213 being employees of petitioner were not obliged to approach the Labour Court as they were not employees of an industry. I have no doubt in my mind that respondents being not covered by the definition of civil servants were justified to approach the Labour Court for redressal of their grievance. Further, the petitioner itself kept aloof from the proceedings before Labour Court and did not raise any objection qua its jurisdiction, it is not open for it to agitate the said point in these proceedings.
14. As a sequel to the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the view that the petitioner did not diligently pursue the matter before the forums below, therefore, it cannot blame either the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, V, Sargodha or the Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as the law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. Further, the non-initiation of any departmental proceedings against the TMO, who appeared as CW-1, before the Labour Court and made statement contrary to the interest of the department, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, smells some foul play by the Officers/officials of the department. Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any material by the forums below justifying interference by this court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition is dismissed in limine being devoid of any force.