Through this revision petition filed under Section 47 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 the petitioner Nasir Shahzad has challenged the judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby appeal of the petitioner against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act 1936 dated 27.08.2016 was knocked out on the ground of limitation.
2. Relevant facts of this matter are that petitioner Nasir Shahzad filed a petition under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act 1936 against the respondents, M/s. Gulistan Textile Mills before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act 1936 seeking recovery of his unpaid salary of 25 months, gratuity and leave encashment of three years and 10 times compensation total amounting to Rs. 9,16,03,200/- after leaving job as General Manager Admin which was contested from the opposite side on various legal and factual grounds. The Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 after observing formalities of trial accepted the petition partially vide order dated 27.08.2016 and the petitioner was held entitled to get basic salary amounting to Rs. 1800960/-. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner assailed that order in appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, which was dismissed after contest vide judgment dated 27.11.2018, hence, this revision petition before this forum; which was entertained by my learned predecessor and notice was issued to the respondent who appeared with their counsel Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Malik, advocate but after joining the proceedings on some dates the respondents absented on account of which they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.10.2019. Exparte arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner have been heard.
3 & 4. Arguing the revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is against law and facts as outcome of colorful exercise of judicial authority because when the petitioner filed appeal before the said learned forum on 21.10.2018 the same was considered filed within time as is noted at page No. 58 of the revision petition, which is attested copy of order sheet of the appeal file. Further argued that on the file of appeal the petitioner had produced annexure "J" available at page No. 50 of the revision petition, which is an application for supply of copy of impugned order of Authority dated 27.08.2016 bearing date 01.09.2016 filed before Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Vehari also bearing note and signature of said Authority dated 28.09.2016. In this behalf learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are usually presided by Labour Officer posted in each district of the Province, who have no fixed place of their working. Nor such officers are under some discipline or regular watch by some superior body and litigants involved in such like matters are always at their mercy . In this case after the pronouncement of order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Authority , the author of this order was transferred and his successor assumed duty on 8.09.2016. The petitioner drafted application to get copy of impugned order dated 27.08.2016 well within time on 01.09.2016 but could not obtain permission to get attested copy of the impugned order till the arrival of successor of Authority . Further , argued that the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan while deciding the issue of limitation ignored and misinterpreted the legal and factual aspects of limitation controversy , whereas the appeal filed by his client was within time. Has ultimately prayed for acceptance of revision petition and referring back the appeal of his client to the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan for decision afresh on merits. Reliance placed on PLD 2012 Peshawar 121, titled Farid Ullah Khan Kundi v. Rustam Khan, 1971 SCMR 148 titled Sh. Ghulam Mohammad and another v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. and 21 others and 1998 SCMR 1227 titled Murad Bakhsh and 7 others v.
Haji Jehangir and 2 others.
5 & 6. Heard and record annexed with the revision petition seen.
7. On careful appraisal of record of this revision petition it is noted that when the petitioner filed appeal against the impugned order of Authority dated 27.08 .2016 before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan his appeal was entertained by the said forum on 21.10.2016 and Reader of the said Court recorded a note of "Kafiat" which reads as under: {{URDU TEXT}} Thereafter , the appeal was initially heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan and was ordered to be admitted for regular hearing and process was issued for the service of the respondents.
Afterwards the appeal was heard on merit but the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan dismissed the appeal as being time barred and did not take up or record opinion upon factual and other legal merits of the appeal. Record of the revision petiti on also contains copy of an application filed by the petitioner for supply of impugned order of Authority dated 27.08.2016 bearing a date 01.09.2016, which was, however , allowed on 28.09.2016 by an Officer enjoying the power of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, who seems to be a different person than the one who passed the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 as is evident from different kind of signatures of the said Authority . In other , words it supports the version of the petitioner that after passing of impugned, order dated 27.08.2016 the Officer who exercised power of Autho rity stood transferred and his successor allowed the application for supply of copy on 28.09.2016. Contention of the petitioner advanced through his learned counsel regarding consumption of time to get copy of the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 leads to inference that the petitioner filed appeal against the impugned order of Authority before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Milian within permissible time.
8. This is a labour matter and the Courts as per guidance of numerous superior Courts judgments have been required to take a pragmatic and liberal view on the question of limitation and tendency of bogging down litigants by strict rules of technical and legal formalities has been disapproved. On the said aspect the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case 2003 PLC (CS) 796 titled Managing Director , Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, Karachi v . Ghulam Abbas and others has laid down guidance in the following words: "Besides above reference, decision of the cases, on merits have always been encouraged instead of non-suiting the litigants for technical reasons including of limitation. In this behalf good number of precedents can be cited where question of limitation was consid ered sympathically after taking into consideration the relevant facts.
Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Yagoob v. Pakistan Petroleum Limited and another 2000 SCMR 830, Messrs. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Muhammad Tahir Khan and others PLD 2001 SC 980, Teekam Das M. Haseja, Executive Engineer , WAPDA v. Chairman, WAPDA 2000 SCMR 142. There are cases where even delay has been condoned by the Tribunal without receiving application from the appellant but no interference was made by this Court on the premises that Service Tribunal had passed order in exercise of its discretionary powers. In this behalf refere nce may be made to the case of WAPDA v. Muhammad Khalid 1991 SCMR 1765 . Relevant para therefrom reads as under: "As regards the question that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the respondent the matter being one of the discretion, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be set aside on a technicality alone."
9. In another judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan relating to labour laws it has been held that labour laws are to be construed liberally and favourably to the interest of the emplo yees. Yet in another judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan viz Managing Director Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas and others (PLD 2003 SC 724) it has been held that decision of the cases on merits have always been encouraged instead of non-suiting the litigants for technical reasons including the limitation.
10. In view of what has been discussed and held above, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan dated 27.11.2018 based upon C misunderstood and misinterpreted facts and circumstances of the controve rsy relating to limitation cannot be honored with-sustainability which is resultantly set aside while allowing this revision petition. Appeal filed by the petiti oner shall be deemed to be still pending before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, who after receipt of copy of this order shall decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law, indeed after affording fair opportunity of hearing to both sides. A copy of this order be remitted to the Court concerned for information and compliance and file of revision petition to records.