The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was dismissed from service by the respondents vide order dated 1-9-1978. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court-I, Lahore on 18-4-1990. The contents of the grievance petition reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Mechanic in the Engineering Section in the Department of Agriculture in the year 1965. He was working at Gujranwala at the relevant time. The petitioner submitted an application before the respondents for leave of 4 days from 9-8-1978 to 12-8-1978 on the ground of illness. The contents of grievance petition further reveal that for remaining period of August, 1978, the petitioner did not perform his duties on the ground of illness as Khalid Munk Suleharia, Medical Officer has issued medical certificate in favour of the petitioner which reveals that the petitioner is in disposition. The respondents returned the medical certificate to the petitioner on 19-8-1978 and the .Petitioner was directed to have him checked up from the Medical Superintendent, Gujaranwala so that he again sent medical certificate issued by the aforesaid Dr. Khalid Munir Sulehria. The petitioner came to the office/workshop for resumption of duties on 10-9-1978 alongwith fitness certificate. The petitioner was not allowed by the respondents to do so and was verbally told that his service has been terminated a long ago. The petitioner being aggrieved sent grievance notice to the respondents on 19-3-1990 and subsequently filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on 18-4-1990. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 filed two written statements controverting the allegations levelled in the grievance petition.
2. The learned Labour Court accepted the grievance petition vide decision dated 1-3-11-1994.
Respondents Nos.4 to 7 being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal, who accepted the same vide judgment dated 16-5-1998. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal was erred in law to dismiss the grievance petition of the petitioner on the ground of limitation which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner has filed appeal against the termination order before the Departmental Appellate Authority, who does not decide the same which is pending adjudication, therefore, the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal was erred in law to dismiss the grievance petition as time-barred. In support of his contention, he relied upon F.A. Khan's case (PLD 1964 SC 520). He further submits that respondent No,1 has committed material irregularity by deciding the point of limitation which has already been decided by respondent No,2, who had only jurisdiction either to condone the delay or refuse to condone the same, therefore, respondent No,1 has no lawful authority to dismiss the grievance petition of the petitioner as time-barred. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following - judgments:-- "Mst. Fauzia Parveen v. Mst. Sahib Khatoon, and others." (1988 Law Notes (S.C.) 506).
"Naseem Ahmad Ch. v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal" (1995 SCM R 1655).
"Government of Sindh through A.-G. v. Masood Hussain, and others." (2002 SCM R 155).
' He further urges that respondent No,1 was erred in law to accept the appeal of the respondent by relying upon the documents which were not before respondent No,2. Respondent terminated the services of the petitioner without adopting the proper procedure and inquiry as is admitted by RW- 1 Riasat Ali produced by the respondents. He further urges that the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner in violation of mandatory provision of West Pakistan Standing Order of 1968, therefore, termination order is invalid. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments : "Wallayat Ali. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal," (2001 PLC 350).
"Hafeez Shah and others. v. United Bank Ltd, and others." (2001 PLC 489).
' He further submits that the respondents did not raise objection of limitation in written statement filed by the respondents and did not attach the documents with the -written statement, therefore, the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal was erred in law to decide the same on the basis of documents against the petitioner which was not before the Punjab Labour Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Mst.. Fahmida Kausar v. Mst. Farhat and others" (1969 SCM R 336).
"Abdul Karim. v. Muhammad Ibrahim" (1976 SCM R 79).
"Province of Punjab v. Imran and Company" (1989 M LD 4087)
"Mst. Fauzia Parveen. v. Mst. Sahib Khatoon, and others." (1988 SCM R 552).
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the petitioner is a civil servant. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter in view of bar contained in Article 212 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. He further urges that the respondents have raised question of limitation in their written statements and the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal was justified to dismiss the grievance petition of the petitioner as time-barred as the Punjab Labour Court did not advert to this aspect of the case whereas the Punjab Appellate Tribunal has considered the evidence on record in this aspect of the case and had given findings with cogent reasons against the petitioner. He further submits that the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondents on 1-9-1978. The petitioner allegedly filed departmental appeal against his termination order on 10-9-1978. The learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal had given findings on facts after proper appreciation of all the documents filed by the petitioner that the petitioner had filed departmental appeal a long after incident in-question. He further urges that according to the information of the respondents, the petitioner had gone to abroad and the petitioner had filed grievance petition before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal on 18-4-1990 after 11 years. He further submits that the Punjab Appellate Tribunal has lawful jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation, where the Labour Court had decided the question of limitation without applying his independent mind and without proper appreciation of the record. He summed up his arguments that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunals below while exercising powers in Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner is a workman, therefore, the petitioner has only remedy to file greivance petition before the Labour Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Agriculture Worker's Union v. The Registrar Trade Unions, Quetta, and others." (1997 PLC 57)
"S. Rifat Ali v. Messrs MC Donald Layton and Co." (1992 PLC 981)
"Muhammad Saleem Malik v. Agriculture Engineer" (1989 PLC 605)
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
7. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basis facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties. The petitioner was removed from the service by the respondents vide order 1-9-1978. The petitioner sent grievance notice to the respondents on 19-3-1990. The petitioner filed grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court on 18-4-1990. The respondents filed written statement before the Punjab Labour Court and controverted the allegations levelled in the grievance petition and took the following stand in the written statement on behalf of respondents Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7:-- "That the appointing/terminating authority of the petitioner is the Agricultural Engineer, Gujranwala where Punjab Labour Court No,7 is functioning, hence jurisdiction of this Court is barred. Copy of the removal order of the petitioner under rule 3(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants & Efficiency & Discipline)
Rules, 1975 is attached. Fullfledge/independent creation of Gujranwala since 1-7-1977 as per Endst No,11723-29/4-247/DGA/Estt: dated 30-10-1977 is also attached.
' On Facts: ' That the contents of para No,2 of the petition are admitted to be true but the medical certificate returned to the petitioner for countersignatures from the Medical Superintendent, Gujranwala were never submitted to regularise his case. As in para No,3 above, However, it is submitted that the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Agricultural Engineer, Gujranwala which he dated 10-9- 1978, (a bogus date and fraudulent try) which was diarised in the office at No,2112 dated 26-8-1989.
That the contents of subpara (a) are denied. The appointing/terminating Authority of the petitioner is/was the Agricultural Engineer, Gujranwaia as is evident from the application for appointment dated 17-1-1974 and termination orders dated 31-5-1979 bearing endorsment No,3984-4005.
' That the contents of para No,6 of the application are not denied. However, his appeal/grievance motive, etc. Were rejected after due consideration.
' Written statement on behalf of respondent No,5 ' The petitioner has not come in this learned Court with clean hands, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
' It is correct that grievance notice was received in this office on 25-3-1990 which was duly replied vide this office Registered Letter No,2151/Estt: dated 2-4-1990. He was told that Agricultural Engineering Lahore Division: was not in existence during 1965 and if the petitioner had only orders issued by Agricultural Engineer, Lahore Division, Lahore a copy may be supplied to this office. No reply was received from the petitioner so far."
8. The Punjab Appellate Tribunal was justified in view of the aforesaid stands of the respondents in their written statement which were not properly appreciated by the Punjab Labour Court, therefore, the Punjab Appellate Tribunal was justified to revise the findings of the Punjab Labour Court. The Punjab Appellate Tribunal had decided the question of limitation without adverting to the documents on record before the Punjab Labour Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, do not support,the case of the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited judgments laid down a principle that the Punjab Appellate Tribunal will not ordinarily interfere and also observe that the condonation of delay by the Labour Court under section 5 of the Limitation Act was neither arbitrarily nor illegal then the Punjab Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In the present case as mentioned above, the Punjab Labour Court has condoned the delay arbitrarily, therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances. The Punjab learned Appellate Tribunal has given findings against the petitioner after appreciation of evidence that the petitioner altered the dates in a criminal manner on the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner before the Departmental Authority. The petitioner is beneficiary of alteration of dates but this aspect was not considered by the Punjab Labour Court; whereas this aspect was considered by the Punjab Appellate Tribunal and had given findings on facts against the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is a beneficiary of alteration of .Dates. Coupled with the facts that the respondents had taken definite stand in the written statement that his appeal was rejected. In this view of the matter; the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner "F.A. Khan v.
The Government of Pakistan, (PLD 1964 SC 520) is not applicable. The petitioner is a beneficiary of cutting the dates on the appeal filed by the petitioner, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to non-suit the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Akhtar Ali. v. The University of the Punjab" (1979 SCM R 549). It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunal below while exercising powers in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the D.B. Of this Court in Muhammad Musaddiq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600).
9. As mentioned above, the petitioner has changed the dates on his appeal and filed appeal against his termination order after 11 years. This fact brings the case in the area that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must come to the Court with clean hands. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner" (PLD 1973 SC 236).
"Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Addl: Commissioner, and others." (1998 SCM R 1462).
10. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. However, the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the Petitioner have no relevancy in view of peculiar circumstances of this case. It is pertinent to mention here that the operation of the impugned order of the Punjab Appellate Tribunal was suspended by this Court vide order dated 2-7-1998 and the respondents did not file any application for vacation of stay granted by this Court by the aforesaid order. In this -view of the matter, in case, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondents in obedience of the direction of the Punjab Labour Court and the petitioner had performed duties and worked then respondents are restrained to recover the salaries received by the petitioner for the aforesaid period as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case (PLD 1992 SC 207).
' With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.