This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 09, Multan whereby an application made by the appellants for setting aside exparte proceeding dated 16.01.2016 and exparte judgment dated 19.04.2016 was dismissed.
2. The respondents made a grievance petition QS 33 of PIRA, 2010 for their regularization in service as permanent worker/ workmen as Fitter Coolies etc on the ground that they have served the appellant department for more than nine months without any complaint and to the entire satisfaction of their superiors. In the said grievance petition the appellant establishment absented from the Court and first were proceeded against exparte on 16.01.2016 and then after recording the evidence the grievanc e petition was accepted vide judgment dated 19.04.2016. The appellant being aggrieved by said order made a petition before the learned Presiding Officer for setting aside the exparte proceedings order and exparte judgment which was contested by the responden ts and vide impugned judgment dated 13.10.2017 the petition was dismissed, hence the present appeal.
3. The learned law officer has contended that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court the health of representative of the appellant did not remain sound, therefore the absence ' from the Court was not deliberate, and appellant establishment came to know about the impugned judgment dated 19.04.2016 when the respondents made an application for implementation of the said judgment, therefore the delay in filing the petition was liable to be condoned but the learned trial Court has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the application arbitrarily . Learned law officer has further contended that the limitation for setting aside exparte order dated 16.01.2016 was three years under Article 181 of 1st Schedule to the limitation act as no period of limitation has specifically been provided. The application for setting aside exparte order in this way was also within time but the learned trial Court has ignored this aspect of the case. He relied on 1992 SCMR 707, 1979 CLC 288 and 1989 SC 627.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has contended that absence of the appellants was deliberate and willful and petition for setting aside exparte proceeding and exparte judgment was made after expiry of period of limitation, therefore the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the same..
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the available record.
6. It is an admitted fact that during the proceedings in the grievance petition the respondent's representative appeared before the Court. It is alleged that during the pendency of the petition the representative's health did not remain sound and due to his absence during proceedings, the department was proceeded against exparte and the department came to know about exparte judgment when the application for implementation of the judgment was made but no proof of ailment of the representative was produced before the learned trial Court Exparte judgment was passed on 19.04.2016 and the petition for setting aside the same was made on 02.12.2016 after 7-1/2 months of passing of the said judgment.
7. In the instant case the appellants were proceeded against exparte on 16.01.2016 and no application for setting aside exparte proceedings was made, hence the reliance cannot be placed on 1992 SCMR 707 titled Hashim Khan Vs. National Bank of Pakistan and in the aforesaid case at the time of making the application for setting aside exparte order no final judgment was passed and when exparte proceedings were taken the case was not fixed for hearing. In the 'instant case on 16.01.2016 was the date of hearing as last and final opportunity was granted to the appellants for filing of the written reply . After 16.01.2016 the learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the respondents and petition was accepted exparte. Thereafter limitation of 30 days was available under Article 181 of 1st Schedule to the Limitation Act. The case law produced by the learned law officer is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellants were required to explain the delay of each day in filing of petition but no plausible explanation was given. Ill health of representative was alleged for non-appearing before the Court but no proof was produced.
8. It has been established from the scrutiny of record that the application for setting aside exparte judgment was made on 02.12.2016 after 7-1/2 months of passing of the impugned exparte judgment. The question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance and would have substantial bearing on merits of the case. The law of limitation is required to be followed strictly. In this respect reliance can be placed on PLD 1976 SC 258, 1978 SCMR 367, PLD 1958 SC 104, PLD 1956 FC 72, PLD 1964 SC 97, PLD 1949 PC 45, PLD 1969 Lah. 1039 , PLD 1973 SC 236, PLD 1975 SC 331, 1989 SCMR 467, 1949 SCMR 271, 1988 SCMR 1354, 1987 SCMR 1606 , 1989 SCMR 1149, 1981 SCMR 244, 1984 SCMR 177, 1956 AC 736, PLD 1959 SC 276, 1977 PLC (C.S.T) 165 and PLD 1990 SC 692 .
9. According to the above discussion, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. The impugned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 19.04.2016 is in accordance with law, the same is hereby maintained. The appeal is without merits, the, same is hereby dismissed. However , the department is directed to observe all the codel formalities and rules and instructio n issued by the Government before regularization of the respondents in service.
File be consigned to the record room after due completion.