Muhammad Safdar petitioner has filed the above captioned petition stating therein that he was an employee of respondent management having about 30 years service to his credit. In 1995 he was allotted Quarter No, D-1, PTCL Colony, Rawalpindi where he started living alongwith his family members. The quarter allotted was in a very bad condition and during rainy season the rainy water use to follow inside the quarter. He therefore, giving this fact into the knowledge of respondent management shifted on 27.06.2009 to Quarter No, 6-E of the same colony and requested to change the allotment accordingly as it had been allowing previously to its other employees. But treating this act of the petitioner as misconduct the respondent management without due process of law dismissed him from service vide impugned order dated 16.03.2011. Hence, the petition under Section 33 of IRO, 2011 praying reinstatement in service with back benefits was filed by the petitioner.
2. Application for condonation of delay was also moved by the petitioner with the assertion that he was terminated on 16.03.2011 against which he made representation to the respondent management but the same was refused on 14.05.2011 and as such within prescribed period of 60 days i,e, upto 14.07.2011 he had to approach NIRC for redressal of his grievance but during that period IRA, 2008 was not in field and neither NIRC nor Labour Court were functional and therefore he filed writ petition on 20.08.2011 before Hon'ble Islamabad High Court. However he withdrew the same after promulgation of IRO, 2011. As the petitioner has been pursuing his grievance before the Court of law, the delay if any in filing the grievance petition which is neither deliberate nor intentional may be condoned.
3. On the contrary, the respondent management put in reply to the main petition and also the application for condonation of delay and resisted the same. The grievance petition being time barred prayed for dismissal of the same alongwith application for condonation of delay.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was terminated on 16.03.2011 and his representation made against termination was refused on 14.05.2011, and since the IRA, 2008 was not in field as such neither NIRC nor Labour Court were functional, therefore the petitioner for redressal of his grievance invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court by filing Writ Petition No, 2666/2011 which he withdrew on 04.10.2011 after promulgation of IRO, 2011. According to him the petitioner has been pursuing his grievance before a Court of law, as such the delay if any in filing instant grievance petition which was neither deliberate nor intentional is liable to be condoned. Lastly, he urged for acceptation of the application for condonation of delay and decision of the grievance petition on merits.
5. Conversely, the learned Counsel for the respondent while vehemently opposing the application submitted that the IRA, 2008 stood repealed on 30.04.2010 by virtue of its Section 87(3) and during the interregnum period w,e,f, 30.04.2010, when no industrial relations law was holding the field, the workers had remedy under the ordinary law prevailing at that time because in the absence of special law the ordinary/general laws come forward to fill in the vacume. He also submitted that before the promulgation of IRO, 2011 NIRC was since not functional, therefore, new fora was provided to the workers/workmen/ labourers under the newly enacted provincial laws dealing with the industrial disputes and the persons having grievance could approach the appropriate forum provided under the respective provincial laws. He yet next submitted that in the present case the petitioner had not approached the Labour Court within the stipulated time and as no reasonable explanation has been rendered by the petitioner for such delay in filing his grievance petition, the application for condonation of delay as well as the main grievance petition merit dismissal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of respondent management whose services were terminated on 16.03.2011 and his representation made against termination was refused by the respondent management on 14.05.2011. The IRA, 2008 stood repealed on 30.04.2010 by virtue of its Section 87(3). It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the IRA, 2008 was not in field as such neither NIRC nor Labour Court were functional, therefore, the petitioner wee constrained to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court by filing a Writ Petition No, 2666/2011 on 20.08.2011 for redressal of his grievance within 60 days of refusal of his representation which he withdrew on 04.10.2011 after promulgation of IRO, 2011 and filed the instant grievance petition before this Commission. According to him the petitioner has been pursuing his grievance before a Court of law, as such the delay if any in filing the instant grievance petition which was neither deliberate nor intentional is liable to be condoned. I am sorry, I cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the IRA, 2008 stood repealed on 30.04.2010 by virtue of its Section 87(3) and during the interregnum period w,e,f, 30.4.2010 when no Industrial Relations law was holding the field, the workers had remedy under the ordinary laws prevailing at that time because in the absence of special law, the ordinary/general laws come forward to fill in the vacuum. Undoubtedly, before the promulgation of IRO, 2011, NIRC was not functional but in terms of Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, the provincial legislation were made on 30th June 2010, 5th July, 2010, 14th July 2010 and 22nd July 2010 for the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtoonkhawa and Balochistan respectively, whereby forum of Industrial Labour Commission/Labour Appellate Tribunal/Labour Court had been provided to the workers/workmen Labourers under the newly enacted provincial laws dealing with the Industrial dispute and the persons having grievance could approach the appropriate forum provided under the respective provincial laws. I am fortified in this view by the dictum laid down in the case of Airleage of PIAC Employees versus Federation of Pakistan (2011 SCM R 1254).
8. In the case in hand the respondent management has its branches all over the country. The petitioner was working as Telecom Technician in the office of DE, Phones Ruler in Rawalpindi Branch of the respondent management. He could approach the appropriate forum provided under the respective provincial law dealing with the industrial dispute for redressal of his grievance but instead of doing so he filed a writ petition which was later on withdrawn on the ground to approach this Commission. The petitioner thus did not approach the Labour Court within the stipulated period. The petitioner approached this Commission (NIRC) for relief beyond the specified period of limitation for which he was bound to explain each day delay to the satisfaction of this forum because valueable rights had accrued to the other side. But no reasonable explanation has been rendered by the petitioner for such delay or with regard to the diligent prosecution of the case in good faith, which for the lack of jurisdiction and the exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the remedy before the other Court. It was therefore, in view of provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act obligatory on the part of the petitioner for discharging the initial onus justifying for exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the previous proceedings.
9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the application for condonation of delay has no force and is rejected and the grievance petition being time barred is also dismissed.