1. ' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the order dated 5th July, 1976, passed. By Presiding Officer, Labour Court VI, Hyderabad in Appeal No, 273/1974; filed under section 36-D of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the order dated 30th August, 1974, passed by the Junior Labour Court V, Hyderabad, allowing respondent No, l's application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, whereby he was allowed annual increments.
2. ' I have heard Mr. A. T. Mahmood learned counsel for the petitioner, though none of the respondents was present or represented before me today.
3. ' Mr. A. T. Mahmood has raised the following grounds in support of this petition :-
(1) That the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court VI, Hyderabad is without jurisdiction as the same was passed without hearing the petitioner and also respondent No, 1.
(2) That the claim of respondent No, I who was the applicant before the Junior Labour Court V, Hyderabad was time-barred.
4. ' So far as the first ground is concerned, it is absolutely misconceived for the impugned order itself states that the petitioner who was appellant before respondent No, 2 was represented by Mr. Muhammad Hamid Advocate. The impugned order also specifically states that respondent No 2 had heard respondent No, I who had submitted that he had produced documents before the Junior Labour Court V, to suggest that the department had allowed increments to other persons although they had also not passed the required courses enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner on what basis he has stated in the petition that the petitioner and respondent No, 1 were not heard by the respondent No,
2. He states that ha has stated so on the basis of the record and not on the basis of any information received from the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner before respondent No, 2 for any person. It is, therefore, clear that the ground has been raised simply on the basis of conjecture and surmises, otherwise the petitioner would and should have filed the affidavit of the counsel of the petitioner who was appearing before respondent No, 2 to the effect that he did not appear before or was not heard by respondent No, 2.
5. ' Taking up the second ground, it would suffice to say that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out from the record anything that this ground was urged before respondent No, 2 and was not considered by him. He has neither stated so in the petition nor has he filed any affidavit of the counsel who, as stated, appeared for the petitioner before respondent No, 2.
6. However, the learned counsel pointed out paragraph 8 wherein the petitioner has stated as follows :- "8. That the petitioner brought into record another specific legal objection through his affidavit dated 18th July, 1974 without rebuttal from the respondent No, 3 and the same is reproduced here in below :- `Para 9. The application is barred by time'."
7. ' This may be so but the point is whether the question of limitation was urged before respondent No, 2 or not and nothing to that effect is stated in the petition or brought to my notice from the record.
8. In fact the petitioner should have filed at least a copy of memorandum of appeal to show that he had taken the question of limitation therein but not only that no copy of the memo has been annexed to the petition, but it has not been produced before me even today. No doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner asked for time to produce the same, but he was not sure whether any such point was taken in the memo. Of appeal or not. Since this petition was filed in 1978, I do not consider it expedient to allow him time now for in my opinion even if such a ground was taken', still the question for consideration would be whether the question of limitation was urged before respondent No, 2 or not. And there is no assertion much less evidence to that effect.
9. ' No other ground was urged.
10. ' I, therefore, find no substance in this petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
11. ' At this stage Mr. Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate for respondent No, 1 appeared and stated that Mr. Manzoor Ali khan had gone to attend the funeral of his paternal aunt. Since I have already passed the order, and not to his prejudice I have therefore only recorded the above statement.