HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- The appellant-department has fild the instant appeal before this court against jrdgment/jouder dated 21-6-2006 passed learned presiding officer,labour court No,8 bahawalpur whereby learned presiding officer, accepted the grienance petition of the respondent/petition.
2.The brief facts of the instant appeal are that respondent/ petitioner was initially appointed as a Tubewell Driver/Operator under the control of Executive Engineer, Provincial Building Division, Bahawalpur. Subsequently as per policy of the Government, services of the respondent/petitioner were transferred to Health Department w,e,f, 1-7-1999. Since then respondent/ petitioner is performing his duty as a Tube Well Driver/ Operator at RHC Uch Sharief, District Bahawalpur. Since 1-7-1999, respondent/petitioner has not been paid his monthly salary. He submitted different applications to appellants/respondents for payment of his salary but it has been refused.
Respondent/ petitioner is facing financial hardship. He also instituted a petition before Hon'ble Lahore High Court at Bahawalpur Bench. It was thus submitted that grievance petition be accepted, respondent/ petitioner be . Treated as permanent workman. Appellants/ respondents be directed to make payment of all out standing amounts. The service of the respondent/petitioner was terminated vide letter dated 1-7-1999 that his service was not required; he was also directed to report to District Health Officer Bahawalpur. Respondent/petitioner after serving grievance notice upon the employer, filed grievance petition before Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur.
3.The grievance petition was contested by the appellants/ respondents by filing separate written statements by each respondent some preliminary objections were raised by appellants/respondents. Respondent/petitioner was employed on work-charge basis for the operation of Tube Well located at RHC Uch Sharief for initial period of three months. Further submitted that respondent/petitioner is not an employee in literal sense. Respondent/petitioner is a daily wager. It is admitted in written statement that the service of the respondent/grievance petitioner was extended from time to time. On the other hand all facts of the grievance petition are denied.
4. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur called evidence from both the parties. Respondent/petitioner appeared as PW-1 and tendered documents i,e, copy of order dated 1-7-1999 Exh.P.1, copy of application for granting salary Exh.P.3, copy of application to Incharge RHC Uch Sharief Exh.P.4, copy of application regarding salary Exh.P.5, copy of application dated 8-7- 1999 Exh.P.6, copy of application Exh.P.7, copy of order dated 19-11-2005 Exh.P.8, copy of register presence Exh.P.9, copy of presence report Exh.P.10, copy of report dated 21-3-1999 Exh.P.11, copy of grievance notice Exh.P.12, copy of letter dated 17-10-2005 Exh.P.13, copy of letter dated 15-6-2005 Exh.P.14, copy of notification dated 26/28-10-1999 Exh.P.15, copy of order dated 26-7-1999 Exh.P.16 and copy of letter regarding creation posts Exh.P.17 in support of his grievance petition. On the other hands Sajid Abbas Naqvi D.O. RW-1 and Zulqurnain Jatoi Health Education Officer, RW-2 appeared and tendered documents i,e, copy of order dated 1-7-1999 Exh.R.l, copy of application Exh.R.2, copy of work charged application Exh.R.3, copy of work charge application Exh.R.4, copy of work charged application Exh.R.5, copy of work charge application Exh.R.6, copy of work charge application Exh.R.7, copy of work charge application Exh.R.8, copy of letter dated 1-7-1999 Exh.R.9 and copy of letter dated 1-7-1999 Exh.R.10 in support their contentions.
5. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur after hearing both the parties vide judgment dated 21-6-2006 accepted the grievance petition. Relevant Para of the judgment is reproduced below:--- "Consequently, petition is allowed. It is held that petitioner is a Tube Well Driver/Operator, (permanent workman) of CNW department right from 9-1-1998 to onward. He is entitled to receive his salary right from 1-7-1999 to onward. Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 are directed to pay him the salary and ancillary financial benefits to the petitioner for the aforementioned period. Petitioner continued to be in service of respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 without any break". Hence, department filed instant appeal before this Tribunal."
6. Learned counsel for appellant contends that impugned judgment dated 21-6-2006 is perverse, against law and facts of the case. Judgment is based on surmises and conjectures; therefore same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent/ petitioner was work charge employee and was not working against permanent post. He had illegally occupied a quarter located in the area of Rural Health Centre Uch Sharief. Learned counsel further submitted that impugned judgment dated 21-6-2006 is based on misreading and non- reading of evidence. The appeal of the appellant-department be accepted and dismissed the grievance petition of the respondent/petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioner fully supported the impugned judgment dated 21-6-2006. Learned counsel submitted that instant appeal filed by appellant-department is hopelessly time-barred by 42 days. The appeal of the appellant-department must be dismissed on this sole ground without touching the merits of the case as no cogent reason is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for respondent/ petitioner further submitted that at the time of filing of instant appeal, no application for condonation of delay was appended with appeal. Learned counsel submitted after near about two years, application for condonation of delay was filed, in the said application no cogent reason is mentioned.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and perused the record of the lower court minutely.
9. The instant appeal is barred by 42 days. The impugned judgment dated 21-6-2006 was announced in open court and appellant-department filed application for receipt of certified copy on 5-7-2006 and copy agency prepared certified copy on 5-7-2006 and appellant-department filed an appeal on 2-9-2006 such appeal is hopelessly time barred. It is held in 1989 SCM R 864 titled as Pakistan Railways v. Ghulam Sarwar that it is duty of Court/Tribunal to first determine question of limitation where any special law prescribes for any appeal, a period of limitation, whether' plea of limitation is raised or not, it is duty of the Court/ Tribunal to notice such plea. The Tribunal should apply mind whether there is sufficientgrounds of condonation of delay or not.
Although, in the instant appeal application for condonation of delay is filed after two years of filling the appeal but no cogent reason is taken or prescribed in the application for condonation of delay.
The respondent/petitioner-Riaz Ahmed was appointed as Tube-well Driver/Operator by appellant- department. Subsequently, he was shifted to Health department on 1-7-1999. Since then, the respondent/petitioner is performing duty as Tube well/Operator. Although, he was appointed on daily wages basis but his service was extended from time to time. He obtained the status of permanent workman in the light of judgment "PLD 1996 SC 610" titled as Executive. Engineer, Central Civil Division, Pak P.W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others. In which it is held that if any employee is working on the basis of daily wages with the employer performed his duty more than 9 months period satisfactorily, he attains the status of permanent workman. Further the respondent/ petitioner was appointed with appellant-department which is of a permanent nature, Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur, after discussing and appraisal of evidence on file rightly accepted the grievance petition filed by respondent/ petitioner. RW-1-Mr. Sajid Abbas Naqvi, D.O Building Bahawalpur appeared before court and recorded his IB statement which is reproduced below:--- {{URDU TEXT}} RW-1-Mr. Sajid Abbas Naqvi, D.O. Building Bahawalpur in his statement admitted that respondent/petitioner served the Health department as well as Building department Bahawalpur continuously without any break which is manifested from the statement of RW-1- Mr. Sajid Abbas Naqvi, D.O. Building Bahawalpur, the appellant's own witness. If there is any break in the service that is wholly artificial to deprive the respondent/petitioner from the guaranteed legal rights.
10. The instant appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation being IC time barred by 42 days as well as on merits.