MAIN CASE Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission ("N.I.R.C."), whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.2 (National Bank of Pakistan) against the order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C., was allowed. Vide the said order dated 31.05.2021, the learned Member, N.I.R.C. partly allowed the grievance petition filed by the petitioners with the direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioners' case regarding the effective date for the regularization of their services and the grant of back benefits.
2. The record shows that the petitioners had been appointed on contract basis as Cleaners/Messengers and subsequently, their services were terminated. The petitioners challenged the said termination before the N.I.R.C., Quetta, which dismissed the said petitions through orders dated 24.05.2011 due to lack of jurisdiction. The District and Sessions Judge (Labour Court), Quetta had also dismissed their grievance petitions which were filed under the provisions of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge (Labour Court), Quetta was assailed by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Balochistan High Court through writ petitions which were dismissed vide judgment dated 26.10.2015. The petitioners' civil petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, however, allowed vide judgment reported as 2018 SCMR 157, and respondent No.2 was directed to regularize the petitioners' services. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was rendered on 08.11.2017. It was not until 30.07.2018 that respondent No.2 regularized the petitioners' services. The petitioners are dissatisfied with their appointment letters and want the same to be made effective from the date when their similarly placed colleagues were regularized on 15.09.2013.
3. On the previous date of hearing i.e., 06.12.2022, this Court had required the learned counsel for the petitioners to bring on record the grievance notices issued by the petitioners to their employer.
These grievance notices have been brought on record through application (C.M. No.15/2023). These grievance notices are dated 27.10.2018 and 05.03.2019. There is nothing on the record to show that respondent No.2 had responded to the said grievance notices. It was not until 25.02.2021 that the petitioners filed a grievance petition (case No.4B(04)/2021-Q) before N.I.R.C., Quetta.
4. The primary reason why the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. allowed respondent No.2's appeal against the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C. was that the grievance petition had been filed with a delay.
5. The questions that need to be determined by this Court are whether the grievance notices dated 27.10.2018 and 05.03.2019 (brought on record through C.M. No.15/2023) were served within the limitation period of ninety days provided in Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ("I.R.A.") and whether the grievance petitions were filed by the petitioners before N.I.R.C. within the limitation period provided in the proviso to Section 33(4) of the I.R.A.
6. Section 33(1) of the I.R.A. provides that a worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or by any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent within ninety days of the date on which the cause of such grievance arises. Furthermore, under Section 33(4) of the I.R.A., the petitioner could take his grievance to the N.I.R.C. only if his employer failed to communicate a decision within a period of fifteen days of the submission of the grievance notice, or if the employer had given a decision against the petitioner on his grievance.
7. For filing a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C., the proviso to Section 33(4) of the I.R.A. provides a limitation period of sixty days from the date of the communication of the employer's decision or the expiry of fifteen days of the issuance of the grievance notice.
8. A grievance petition before the N.I.R.C., without the service of a grievance notice on the employer within the limitation period provided in Section 33(1) of the I.R.A., is not maintainable. This Court, in the case of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Vs. Muhammad Dilpazeer Abbasi (2016 PLC 367), has held inter alia as follows:- "A worker/ workman can file a petition for redressal of grievance in the mode or in accordance with the procedure provided in section 33 of the Act. In this behalf a worker/workman is required to bring to the notice of his employer in writing the grievance within 90 days of the cause by which grievance arises and if the employer, under subsection (4) of section 33 fails to make/communicate decision within 15 days of the grievance or the decision rendered is not satisfactory then the matter can be agitated before the Commission. Under proviso to subsection
(4) a worker/ workman who desires to take the matter to the Commission shall do so within a period of 60 days from the date of commencement of the employment or as the case may be from expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) as the case may be."
9. In drawing the said conclusion, this Court relied upon the case law titled Khushal Khan Vs. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (2002 PLC (C.S.) 907), Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited Vs. Muhammad Iqbal Sipra (2007 PLC Labour Cases 398), and Abdul Rauf Vs. Muhammad Shafiq (2006 PLC Labour Cases 135).
10. In the case at hand, the cause for serving a grievance notice on respondent No.2 accrued to the petitioners when their appointment letters were issued to them on 30.07.2018. Admittedly, the grievance notices had not been served by the petitioners on respondent No.2 within the limitation period of ninety days provided in Section 33(1) of the I.R.A. This was reason enough why the petitioners' grievance petitions should have been dismissed. Be that as it may, the petitioners filed their grievance petitions on 25.02.2021 which is also beyond the limitation period provided in the provision to Section 33(4) of the I.R.A. This being the position, I do not find any legal infirmity with the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C.
11. It may also be mentioned that the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. was assailed by the petitioners in the instant petition which was filed on 27.10.2022 (without the attested copy of the impugned order dated 22.03.2022) i.e., with a delay of more than seven months. The petitioners applied for the certified copy of the said order on 01.11.2022 and received the same on the next day. Therefore, this petition also merits dismissal on the grounds of laches.
12. In the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2011 S.C. 676), it has been held that an aggrieved person may invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution within a "reasonable time" which had been interpreted to mean ninety days. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the case of Tayya b Iqbal Vs. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab (2005 CLC 1447) held as follows:- "There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing of a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 but it has to be filed within a reasonable time.
What is the reasonable time, has been interpreted by the superior judiciary of this country as time requisite for filing of appeals/revisions before this Court which is normally three months."
13. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed in limine.