' Muhammad Aslam, Lineman was reverted vide order dated 13-10-1993. He filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by impleading Superintending Engineer, WAPDA (E), 3rd Circle, Lahore, as the only respondent. Status quo order was issued on 15- 12-1993 by Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore. On the next date, that was 23-1-1994, the respondent before the Labour Court did not appear and was proceeded against expane. He, however, applied for rescission of this order on 14-2-1994. The said application was rejected on 6-10-1994, soundness of which order has been assailed by the Superintending Engineer, through the present revision petition.
2. I have gone through the proceedings and briefly heard the learned counsel for the parties. The matter is so simple. According to his own showing, the revision petitioner, respondent before the Labour Court, had acquired awareness about pendency of the grievance petition on 23-1-1994 and he had even engaged a counsel shortly thereafter on 26-1-1994. Submission of an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was, however, delayed uptil 14-2-1994. This constituted negligence on the part of the officer, which could not be condoned, in the opinion of the learned lower Court. As petitioner before this Tribunal, the Superintending Engineer has submitted that the notice, for his attendance in the learned lower Court, issued on 11-1-1994, was received in late hours in his office on 22-1-1994, for the next date of hearing, which was 23-1-1994, and it appeared that this had been withheld or delayed with a purpose. As a public servant, he had to get in touch with the concerned quarters for engaging a counsel and he could not straightaway make appearance in the Court, with his counsel, on the following day, i,e, 23-1-1994, Actually, he had wrongly been impleaded in person as a party, as he himself was an employee of WAPDA, similarly as Muhammad Aslam, the aggrieved person, was, and the latter sued WAPDA as a corporate body.
Muhammad Aslam had initially approached the N.I.R.C. In the matter and subsequently withdrawn his petition from there on 15-12-1993.
3. Law gives period of one month for making such an application; and even though a party has exhibited certain amount of slackness in getting an order of ex parte proceedings set aside, it cannot be said that he is legally precluded from making a move of this kind, and such an application cannot be treated as untenable, if it is actually made within the prescribed period of limitation.
4. Again, in the instant case, certain important questions of controversy will crop up and it will, therefore, be fair that the respondent before the Labour Court ought to be afforded an opportunity to raise legal objections against maintainability of the aggrieved official's petition and to further question merits of his entitlement to be retained in service or to challenge the legality of his removal from service. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent cannot claim to be a workman and the forum of Labour Court will not be available to him for redress of his grievance, if any. Presence of learned counsel for the parties for resolution of this controversy will also be helpful to the 'dial' Court itself, and in all fairness the respondent there should not have been refused the right of audience. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has formed his own opinion about what has been treated as inexcusable negligence on the part of the officer; but I find myself inclined to come to a different conclusion. Had the respondent before the Labour Court been permitted to make a purposeful participation in the proceedings; it would have been of assistance to the Court itself, as in his absence the Court could well have been swayed by the one-sided version of the grievance petitioner.
5. Superior Courts have always favoured decision of cases on merits, rather than on technicalities.
When the respondent before the Labour Court had made the application in time, he ought to have been allowed to appear and contest the case and there was no justification for providing to the grievance petitioner an edge over him (S.E.) and to prevent the latter from placing before the Court the stand-point of the employer.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the S.E. Should not have been debarred from putting in contest. The order rendered by the lower Court in disallowing him to do so was uncalled for. A material irregularity having been committed by the lower Court in passing the impugned order, the same is set aside, on acceptance of the revision petition, with no order as to costs. The proceedings should be carried to conclusion, after respondent in the grievance petition is permitted to file a reply thereto. This shall be conveyed to the Court below, by sending to it a copy of this order.
Revision .