FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.--- Through this petition judgment dated 22.03.2012 passed by respondent No,1 (Impugned Judgment) has been assailed, by virtue of which, order dated 26.10.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad was challenged, who while accepting the grievance petition of respondent No,2 directed that respondent No,2 shall be considered to be in service from the date he filed the application for withdrawal of L. P. R.
2. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,2 that the appeal filed before respondent No,1 was barred by time, therefore, respondent No,1 rightly passed the impugned judgment. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Commandant Pakistan Military Academy, Abbotabad v. Nazran Abbasi and others (2012 SCM R 385) the order passed by the learned Labour Court was a void, therefore, appeal should have been entertained and adjudicated upon on merits by respondent No, 1.
3. As regards the explanation given for filing the appeal after the period of limitation, he submits that due to departmental and administrative delays, the appeal could not be filed in time.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone the available record.
5. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi, (2014 SCM R 1594), Gen. (R.) Parvez Musharraf v.
Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 SC 585) and Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and others (2013 SCM R 587) has held that even if an order/judgment is void, the same has to be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation.
6. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioners before respondent No,1 was barred by 83 days, therefore, even if the order was void, the same had to be challenged within the period of limitation, which the petitioners failed to do.
7. As regards the explanation given for approaching respondent No,1 after a considerable delay, petitioners have not been able to give sufficient reasons for condonation of delay but for attributing the delay to the departmental and administrative issues. Needless to say that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported as Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum v. Abdul Khaliq through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2002 SC 436) has held that in case there is any lapse on the part of the department proceedings needs to be initiated against the delinquent official who caused loss to the government. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that any official, because of whom delay was caused, was taken to task and was penalized.
8. Even otherwise, a normal litigant and the Government have to be treated at par and no extra premium can be given to the government departments, especially so, when the departmental authorities failed to make out a reasonable ground for condonation of delay.
9. For what has been discussed above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by respondent No,1, therefore, the same is upheld as a sequel thereof, this petition is dismissed.