HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- The appellant-department has filed the instant appeal before this Court against judgment/order dated 15-12-2010 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, whereby Learned Presiding Officer accepted the grievance petition filed by respondent/ petitioner and directed the appellant-MEPCO to promote the respondent/petitioner as Test Inspector since 1991 with all benefits.
2.The brief facts of the instant case are that respondent/petitioner was appointed as a Meter Mechanic in WAPDA/MEPCO on 15-5-1970. The respondent/petitioner was promoted as Test Assistant on 17-12-1985, respondent/petitioner passed departmental examination and training course for his promotion as Test Inspector but he was not promoted due to the reasons that respondent/petitioner was under Matric and his juniors such as Saeed Ahmed etc., who were also under Matric and were promoted vide letter No,560-64/27-91 and vide letter dated 18-2-2002, the Regional Manager recommended for the promotion of the respondent/petitioner and right of promotion of respondent/ petitioner was also admitted by Chief Executive MEPCO, Multan vide letters dated 18-9-2002 and 30-3-2003, but even then the promotion of the respondent/ petitioner was not made. Vide letter dated 16-6-2009, the respondent/ petitioner was promoted as Test Inspector (BS-12) since 2009 instead of 1991, by aggrieved from the departmental order dated 16- 6-2009 respondent/ petitioner approached to Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan for redressal of his grievance and filed grievance petition.
3.The MEPCO-department filed written statement before Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan by raising many preliminary objections regarding limitation and lack of cause of action. Learned Presiding Officer called evidence from both the parties. Respondent/ petitioner entered in the witness box as PW-1 and submitted his affidavit Exh.1 besides tendering documents Exh.P.2 to Exh.P.25 in the support of his grievance petition. On the other hand Sh. Ashfaq Nadeem advocate learned counsel for appellant-department tendered documents Exh.R.1 to Exh.R.13 in support of the contentions of the appellantMEPCO.
4. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan accepted the grievance petition of the respondent/petitioner vide judgment/order dated 15-12-2010 and directed the appellant- MEPCO to Promote the respondent/ petitioner as Test Insp.Since 1991 w,e,f, the date as which his other colleagues were promoted. Respondent/ petitioner should also be given Selection Grade (BS-16) if becomes so entitled after his promotion as Test Inspector since 1991 with all benefits. The appellant-MEPCO has filed instant appeal to set-aside the judgment/ order dated 15-12-2010.
5. Learned counsel for appellant contends that impugned judgment dated 15-12-2010 is against law and facts of the case which is not maintainable in the eye of law. He further submitted that impugned judgment' dated 15-12-2010 is based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence.
Learned counsel further submitted that impugned judgment/order dated 15-12-2010 is without jurisdiction and learned Judge also did not consider the point of limitation as grievance petition was time-barred. Learned counsel submitted that impugned judgment/ order dated 15-12-2010 is based on surmises and conjectures and respondent/petitioner was not promoted as Test Inspector as he was under Metric, he did not fulfill the criteria of promotion in 1991, he was entitled for promotion as Test Inspector in 16-6-2009 and no discrimination was made with the respondent/ petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for respondent/ petitioner fully supported the judgment/order 15-12-2010 and argued that Saeed Ahmed possessing same qualification and placed in the same qualification and placed in the same position was promoted by the department as Test Inspector since 1991 while respondent/petitioner was also entitled for promotion as Test Inspector in 1991. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent/ petitioner is being discriminated which is not permissible under Law. The Article 27 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 discourages such discrimination. Learned counsel for respondent/ petitioner placed reliance can be placed on (i) PLD 2008 Lahore 184 titled as Ibrahim Flour and General Mills. District Sheikhupura through Chief Executive v. Government of Punjab through Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and another wherein it is held that "The pciint of discrimination call for interference and exercise of powers of judicial review". Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on 2012 SCMR 136 titled as Gul Muhammad v. M.C.B. Bank Ltd., through President and others.
8(sic). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the learned trial court minutely.
9. The perusal of the file of the Labour Court reveals that respondent/ petitioner is discriminated by MEPCO department as his other colleagues Saeed Ahmed etc. Were promoted as Test Inspector in 1991 and at that time respondent/petitioner and his promoted colleagues had same qualification and All Sher has been working in the same position. Discrimination is not permissible under the law.
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provides equal treatment to the entire citizen placed in a similar and same position. Safe reliance can be placed on (i) PLD 1993 SC 341 titled as Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon and others (ii). 2008 PLC (C.S.) 220 titled as Salman Adil Siddique v.
Province of Sindh and 1991 SCMR 1288 titled as Attyya Bibi v. Federation of Pakistan. The impugned judgment/order assailed in the instant appeal is very much elaborated, convincing and based on reasoning; Learned Presiding Officer has made the correct appraisal of evidence.
10. It is the primary duty of Court first to determine the point of limitation then to proceed on merits.
The appellant-department has sought condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal on the ground that appellant-department was not properly informed about the decision of Labour Court.
An application is filed along with instant appeal for condonation of delay. No cogent and plausible ground is taken in the application for condonation of delay. Instant appeal is badly time barred by 2 months and 12 days. The judgment was announced in open court on 15-12-2010 and application for obtaining certified copy was submitted on 29-12-2010 and copy was prepared by copying agency on 10-1-2011 and instant appeal was filed on 29-3-2011. The delay was not condoned in filing the petition on a similar plea, as it is taken in the instant appeal for condonation of delay that appellant was not properly informed in a reported case 2012 SCMR 136 titled as Gul Muhammad v.
M.C.B. Bank Ltd., through President and others.
11. The instant appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on the point of limitation appeal being barred.