GHULAM SIDDIQUE BAZAI, MEMBER .----By way of this petition under section 51(6) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010, the petitioner seeks implementation of the order dated 17-04-1985 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.2, Multan by way of which the Appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted.
Admittedly the appellant filed the instant petition before the then Labour Appellate Tribunal No.2, Multan on 26-06- 2012 and thereafter by operation of law it was transferred to this Bench vide Order dated 30-09-2015 passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.II, Multan.
2. Brief facts as per narrations made in the appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondents Factory as Driver in the year 1982, but after one year his services were transferred to a contractor , as such, when his services were not treated as employees of respondents' Factory , he filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance for declaration that he was a permanent employee of respondent and also entitled to get all the rights, facilities of per law but on 03-01-1984 the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur dismissed the petition which was assaile d by the petitioner before the Punjab Labour Appellant Tribunal No.II, Multan by filing an appeal, the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.II, Multan vide judgment dated 17-04- 1985 accepted the grievance petition in the following manner:- "6. As a result of the observation made above, accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, the appellant is declared to be regular and permanent employee of the respondent and the respondent is directed to treat him as such and allow him all the right and facilities of such employee."
3. According to the petitioner , after obtaining the copy of said judgment, he sent an application through. Registered Post to respondent on 04-05-1985 and then sent reminders on 13-05-1985 and 30-05-1985 for compliance of the Judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunah but without any fruitful result, as such, on 15-06-1985, he filed an application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents before the Tribunal but the same could not be decided due to suspension of order of the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench vide order dated 26-05-1985 passed in W .P No.217/85.
4. It is further the case of petitioner that as the respondents, have unlawfully and willfully deprived him for payment of Rs.4,392,000/- plus Rs.280,000/- and company's share total Rs.4,672,000/-, therefore, the respondents be dealt with and punished in accordance with law .
5. Record depicts that after receiving the above said order from the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal-II, Multan, the then learned Full Bench vide order dated 13-11-2019 directed the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to comply with the above said order dated 17-04-1985 in letter and spirit. Record also revea ls that when the said order was not complied, the then learned Full Bench passed another order dated 23-10-2020 in the following manner:- "On filing of the petition for regularization of the petitioner in appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore vide its judgment dated 17-04-1985 directed the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner--and to treat him, as such and to allow to him all the rights and facilities of such employ ees. Applicant since 17-04-1985 pressing hard for compliance of the order of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore which has not been complied by the respondent, as such, on 21-10-2020 after hearing the learned counsel for theparties, Factory Manager Fauji Fertilizers Co. Ltd, Goth Matchi Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Raheem yar Khan was directed to appear in person along with compliance report has failed to enter appearance and has not implemented the order , which has attained finality is an act embarrassing for the court law/ Commission, as such, Aeem Khan Factory Manager , FC be summoned through bailable warrant of arrest of worth Rs.100000/- which shall be executed through DOP Raheem yar Khan is directed to submit report of execution of bailable warrant of arrest of Factory manager namely Aleem Khan positively . Factory accounts of FFC are directed to be seized, and concerned branch will ensure compliance of seizing the accounts of company and submit report without any fail on next date of hearing. This case is a glaring example of non-compliance of lawful order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore as well as of this Commission, which requires strict action against the respondent and if till next date of hearing respondent fails to implement the order and submit report, course law shall take its own where in its provided, imprisonment for one year or with fine, which may extent to Rs.75000/- or with both and for committing failure to implement the decision imprisonment for 15 days or a fine which may extend to Rs.30000/- or with both and case of continuing failure with further fine which may extent of 5000/- rupees per every day after first during which the failure continues".
6. The respondents challenged the validity of said order before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court Lahore in Writ Petition No.56105/2020 and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to suspend the operation of said order to the extent of seizure of accounts of respondents/ Factory for the period of fifteen days, while to the extent of rest it was directed to extend opportunity of defence and to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order .
7. It is also evident from record that the respondents again filed a Writ Petition No.60179/2020 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore for grant of interim relief for a period of further fifteen days due to non-availability of learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C, and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 20-11-2020 by granting the relief so prayed and directing the Full Bench to decide the objections of respondents in the light of observations already given by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03-1 1-2020 passed in W .P. No.56105/2020.
8. It is relevant to mention here that on 09-11-2020, the respondents filed objections/ para-wise comments before the Full Bench alleging therein that the order dated 17-04-1985 is not executable as at the time of passing of the order , the petitioner was not in service, the Labour Appellate Tribunal neither set aside the order of his termination nor passed the order of his reinstatement with or without back benefits. It has also been alleged that in the Grievance Petition, the petitioner has himself alleged that his services were terminated on 02-01-1984 by a verbal order , the order of termination was conveyed to him through M.T Supervisor of FFC, however in the petition he never prayed for his reinstatement in service nor ever challenged the order of his termination and as he was employed on daily wage basis, he was paid Rs.30/- day and the petitioner seized to work since 01-03-1983. It is also alleged that the petitioner by concealment of material and with ulterior motives never applied for the implementation of this order till 2012 and after attaining the age of superannuation age of sixty years and after rendering the service in some other department, he moved this petition just to blackmail the respondents. It was further stated that the petitioner firstly filed an application before the Authority appointed under the payment of Wages Act which rejected the same being beyond the period of three years, rest of the application was dismissed on merits with the observations that the petitioner seems to have been working somewhere else and after attaining age of sixty years, he has filed the application before the Authority with a view to extract some money through illegal means from the respondent.
9. It has also been alleged that according to petitioner he was reinstated by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the year 1985, so why he kept mum till the year 2012 and after lapse of a period of twenty seven years, he filed the contempt application for implementation of order which is not executable. Hence, on these grounds it has been payed that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
10. On the other hand the learned counse l for petitioner vehemently argued that firstly he sent an application to the respondents for compliance of judgment dated 17-04-1985 through registered post and then also filed reminders on 13-05-1985 and 30-05-1985, but the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was not implemented, as such, on 15-06-1985, the petitioner filed an application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents before the Tribunal but the same could not be decided due to suspension of order of the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench vide order dated 26-05-1985 passed in W.P No.217/85, as such, the contempt petition was filed in the year 2012.
11. We have heard the valuable arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record with care and diligence.
12. It is an admitted fact that this petition for implementation of the order dated 17-04-1985, thereafter on 26-06- 2012 without any application for condonation of delay . Section 85 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 states that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply in computing the period within which an application is to be made, or any other thing is to be done, under this Act. Undeniably under section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code provides time limit for execution of the decree which is six years and the Limitation Act also provides time limit for doing Acts. Section 48(1) of the C.P.C. provides that no order for the execu tion of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of [six] years from:-
(a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or
(b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree.
Similarly Section 48(2) of Civil Procedure Code provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration of the said term of ' [six] years, where the judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force , prevented the execution of the decree at sometime within [six] years immediately before the date of the application; or
(b) to limit or otherwise af fect the operation of article 2[83 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908.
13. In this petition also the petitioner has alleged that he moved competent application before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.11, Multan for execution of the order , but he has not annexed copy of any order through which it could be ascertained that the said application has been decided or adjourned sine die due to suspension of order dated 17-04-1985, if he had moved an application for execution of order then why he had to move this fresh petition in the year 2012, meaning thereby that this petition was moved after a lapse of about twenty seven years and the petitioner has not alleged any fraud, force, used by the respondents to prevent or restrain him to file such contempt application. So far the other objection of respondents is concerned, as the petitioner himself submitted that his services were terminated and the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.II, Multan has not given the petitioner such relief, therefore, after attaining the age of superannuation how could he be reinstated.
14. Perusal of contents of petition shows that the petitioner has been dismissed from service but in the prayer clause of the grievance notice as well as appeal, the petitioner has not asked for any relief of reinstatement and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has also not extended such relief, hence after attaining the age of superannuation, the respondents cannot be directed for reinstatement of petitioner into service. Apart from above, the petitioner himself annexed a photocopy of, letter dated 12-05-1991 which shows that when he was refused by the respondents to reinstate him into service after the order passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal-II, Multan, he moved an application to Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) but his that application was not entertained due to having no jurisdiction, he has also produced copy of the order dated 13-05-1991 which was issued by the Director , by way of which his application for reinstatement in service and payment of dues was rejected. According to the documents annexed with the petition by the petitioner himself referred above dated 12- 05-1991 and 13-05-1991, that he was refused by the respondents to reinstate him into service in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, but still he did not approach the competent court having jurisdiction at the relevant time which is strange. The petitioner has also produced the copy of Order dated 23-11-1994 passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench whereby the Writ Petition No.217/1985 filed by the respondents was dismissed due to non-prosecution, but despite that he did not pursue the previous contempt application or to file afresh one.
15. The documents produced by the petitioner himself also show that admittedly , he went to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in the year 2010 wherein claimed his back benefits and his said petition was decided on 10- 05-201 1 by rejecting his claimed being time barred.
16. For what has been discussed herein above, we are of the firmed opinion that this contempt petition has not been moved within time rather it is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, dismissed. The earlier orders passed in the matter are recalled. There is no order as to cost. Pile after completion and compilation be consigned to record. Given under our hand and seal of the Commission on this 02nd day of December , 2020.