' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.--- The litigation commenced when respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed petition under section 46 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002 for re-instatement in service with all back-benefits before the Labour Court, Islamabad on 29-11-2008. The said petition was accepted ide an ex parte order dated 10-9-2009. The petitioner on coming to know filed an application for setting aside the same. The petition moved by the petitioner was dismissed for non- prosecution. The application submitted for restoration was too dismissed on the ground of limitation on 21-12-2010. The petitioner challenged the said order through Labour Appeal No,15 of 2012 before this Court, which was admitted on 15-2-2011. Notices were issued to the respondents under the orders of the Court as well as the impugned order dated 21-12-2010 and judgment dated 10-2-2009 were suspended. The appeal on account of lack of jurisdiction was transferred to NIRC, Islamabad. Now same has been returned to the petitioner in view of decision dated 6-2-2013 passed in Appeal No,12A(01) of 2011, therefore, the petitioner finding no other option has filed the instant constitutional petition.
2. The only issue involved with regard to setting aside the ex parte decision, for which controversy raised by the petitioner at various stages. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned Labour Court while deciding the issue involved totally misconceived the relevant provisions of law.
He argued that in fact Article 181 of the Limitation Act would apply instead of Article 151 of the said Act and the residuary Article 181 of the Act provides a period of three years for the application moved under C.P.C., for which no period of limitation is provided by law. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of "Messrs Nazim Polysack Ltd. And another v. Messrs Atals Lease Ltd. And 3 others (2006 YLR 1245, Lahore.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the grant of prayer with a view that a period of 30 days has been provided by law for moving application for setting aside an ex parte decision but the same has not been moved in time, therefore, Labour Court has passed the order observing the application with a sufficient delay. Learned counsel has relied upon Shahid Iqbal v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman and 2 others (2010 PLC 237 Lahore High Court), Al- Karam Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Court No,4 and another (2010 PLC 104, Karachi High Court), and Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messrs Florida Builders (Pvt.) (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 247).
4. I have heard the arguments and gone through the entire record and provisions of law and authorities quoted by both sides.
5. The authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are totally irrelevant to the legal scheme and on the other hand the arguments advanced and the case-law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are appealing to the extent of very question raised with regard to the application of provisions of Limitation Act. I am of the considered opinion after going through the proposition of law that Article 181 of the Act would attract in the instant case. Moreover, good cause had been shown in application for restoration. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has misconceived the legal proposition and wrongly dismissed the application. Hence, the instant petition is accepted and the order passed by the learned Labour Court dated 21-12-2010 is hereby set aside. As a result the case is remanded back to the Labour Court, who would commence the proceedings in application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree from the stage where it was lastly left.