' This is an application for restoration of the main writ petition which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order, dated 16-12-1996. The learned counsel of the applicant submits that the applicant's counsel could not appear at the time the writ petition was called for hearing and was late to attend the Court for about 10 to 15 minutes and in the meantime the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned counsel of the respondents stated that applicant's counsel failed to point out any cogent reasons for restoration of the main writ petition.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit and reasons recorded therein. The same is allowed as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Haleem's case (PLD 1969 SC 270). Consequently, the writ petition is restored to its 'original number as prayed for.
4. With the concurrence of the learned counsel of the parties the main writ petition is decided on a separate judgment. ORDER ' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed on 12-11-1980 as Accounts Assistant in NPS-11 whereas the respondents Nos.3 to 5 were appointed by the respondents in the year 1979. The services of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 were regularized by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide order, dated 30-4-1984 with effect from 16-2-1979. The respondents' Nos.1 and 2 allegedly circulated the Seniority List of the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 5 on 28-1-1985. The seniority list reveals that the petitioner was at Serial No,8 whereas respondents Nos.3 to 5 were at Serial Nos.5 to 7. The petitioner being aggrieved sent a grievance notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 30-6-1988. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not redress the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad. The learned Punjab Labour Court No,4 dismissed the petition of the petitioner vide order, dated 29-2- 1992. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 11-5-1992, hence, the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below were erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 had no authority to regularize the services of respondents Nos.3 to 5 with effect from 16-2-1979 vide order dated 30-4-1984. He further submits that action of the respondents Nos.l and 2 is without lawful authority and law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Inayat Ali and another v.
Manzoor Ullah and another (1987 SCMR 407). He further submits that in Punjab seniority is a vested right. In support of his contention, he relied upon Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar's case (PLD 1991 SC 35).
He further submits that action of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 is in violation of the mandatory rules framed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and counted the ad hoc period of respondents Nos.3 to 5 in the impugned order, dated 30-4-1984 of the respondents Nos.1 and 2.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that seniority list was circulated by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 5 and other employees on 28-1-1985 and the petitioner sent a grievance notice to the respondents on 30-6-1988. The same was sent by the petitioner after scribed period of three months under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He further submits that the petitioner was also promoted in his turn as Sr. Accountant in NPS-16 by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 29-5-1988. He further submits that rules of the Punjab Government were adopted by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, the rules of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not having the status of statutory rules. In support of his contention he relied upon: ' Faiz Ahmad v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies (PLD 1962 SC 315).
' M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 1024).
' The learned counsel of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 submits that respondents Nos.3 to 5 were promoted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide order dated 8-5-1984 with effect from 30-4-1984 whereas the grievance notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 30-6- 1988 which is hightly time-barred. He further submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
He further submits that respondents Nos.3 to 5 were regularized by respondents Nos.1 and 2 after excluding six months' period, therefore, respondents Nos.1 and 2 had not committed any irregularity. He further submits that petitioner did not file application for condonation of delay before the Punjab Labour Court along with petition filed by the petitioner before the Punjab Labour Court therefore, the. Same was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties. Petitioner was appointed as Accounts Assistant in NPS-11 by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide appointment letter, dated 12-3-1979. The respondents Nos.3 to 5 were allegedly appointed in the year 1979 on ad-hoc basis as Accounts Assistant in NPS-11. Services of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 were regularized by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide order, dated 8-5- 1984 with effect from 30-4-1984. The seniority list was circulated on 28-1-1985. Petitioner admited in cross-examination that order dated 8-5-1984 was never challenged by him: The petitioner further conceded that in revised seniority list issued on 24-5-1983 respondents Nos.3 to 5 are senior to him.
The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid orders till 29-5-1988. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the petitioner did not agitate the matter within three months as prescribed under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is also admitted fact that petitioner did not file any application for condonation of delay along with the petition filed by the petitioner before the Punjab Labour Court under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, findings of the Labour Court in para.8 are in accordance with law whereas the Appellate Court was erred in law to take the contrary view as per principle laid down by the Karachi High Court in National Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Homi F-Behrama and 2 others (PLD 1979 Karachi 692). The petitioner failed to file application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act as mentioned above along with his petition before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as time-barred as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ata Ullah Malik's case (PLD 1964 SC 236). Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner that there is nothing to reveal that any rule was violated or floated in either regularizing the services of respondents Nos.3 to 5 or in their promotion.
It is settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings of facts as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Khuda Bukhsh's case (1974 SCMR 279).
' Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case (PLD 1981 SC 522).
' Muhammad Sharif's case (PLD 1981 SC 246).
' S.W.H. Jafri v. Muhammad Salim Sheikh and 20 others (1979 PLC 43).
' It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction in Mussadaq Hussain's case (PLD 1973 Lah. 600). It is also admitted fact that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had not framed any rules under the provisions of law. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have only adopted the rules of the Punjab Government, therefore, the rules of respondents Nos.1 and 2 do not attain the status of statutory rules. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments: ' Faiz Ahmad v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, West Pakistan, Lahore and others (PLD 1962 SC 315).
' M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 1024).
' Muhammad Anwar Hussain v. Chairman, B.I.S.E., Gujranwala (2000 PLC (C.S.) 678).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.