' The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition from an interlocutory order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan on 12th of February, 1994, whereby his application for deciding the question of limitation before recording evidence on the factual controversies, was not accepted.
2. Naseer Ahmad Khan, respondent No, 1 was an employee of the petitioner as Audit Assistant. He was dismissed from service on 3rd of February, 1992. He filed a grievance petition to assail his dismissal. The petitioner contested the grievance petition, inter alia, raising an objection that it was barred by time.
3. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application praying that since the grievance petition was hopelessly barred by time, the question of limitation be decided before recording evidence on the merits of the case. The learned Labour Court vide its impugned order did not accept the application observing that the issue of limitation needed evidence for its conclusive decision and, therefore, it would be decided alongwith the main grievance petition. The petitioner has assailed this order in this revision petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason which has prevailed with the learned Labour Court in declining the request of the petitioner is quite cogent and valid. The objection of limitation raised by the petitioner in this case is not purely legal; it is factual as well. In order to avoid fragmentary decision of the case, it is desirable that adjudication of the factual controversies should not be undertaken piecemeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground for interference and dismiss this revision petition in limine.
Revision .