CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NPGCL, GENCO-III, TPS MUZAFARGARRAH vs KHALID UMAR TARIQ IMRAN S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NPGCL, GENCO-III, TPS MUZAFARGARRAH VS KHALID UMAR TARIQ IMRAN S. 11 & O. II, R. 2---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114---Concurrent or co-existent actions or remedies---Choice of aggrieved person---'Doctrine of election'---Scope---When an aggrieved person intends to commence any legal action to enforce any right and or invoke a remedy to set right a wrong or to vindicate an injury, he has to elect and or choose from amongst the actions or remedies available under the law---Choice to initiate and pursue one out of the available concurrent or coexistent actions or remedy from a forum of competent jurisdiction vests with the aggrieved person---Once the choice is exercised and the election is made then the aggrieved person is prohibited from launching another proceeding to seek relief or remedy contrary to what could be claimed and or achieved by adopting other proceeding/action and or remedy, which in legal parlance is recognized as 'doctrine of election'---Giving a choice to select a remedy from among several coexistent and/or concurrent remedies prevents the recourse to multiple or successive redressals of a singular wrong or impugned action---It also provides an opportunity for an aggrieved person to choose a remedy that best suits the given circumstances---Such a rule of prudence has been developed by courts of law to reduce the multiplicity of proceedings---As long as a party does not avail of the remedy before a Court of competent jurisdiction all such remedies remain open to be invoked---Once the election is made then the party generally, cannot be allowed to hop over and shop for one after another coexistent remedies. Citation Name: 2024 PLC 104 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NPGCL, GENCO-III, TPS MUZAFARGARRAH VS KHALID UMAR TARIQ IMRAN Ss. 58 & 85---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 13---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Ex-parte judgment---Deliberately abstaining from joining proceedings---Dismissal order was challenged by the respondent (employee) before the Labour Court, which was subsequently transferred to the National Industrial Relations Commission ("NIRC")---Petitioner (department) failed to appear before the NIRC---Resultantly ex-parte judgment was passed in favour of respondent (employee)---Application was filed by petitioner under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, to set aside the said ex-parte judgment, however both said applications were dismissed by the Member NIRC, the Full Bench of NIRC, and by the High Court---Validity---Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ("IRA"), stipulates that any person aggrieved by a 'decision given' by any Bench of the NIRC may, within thirty days of such decision, prefer an appeal to the NIRC; and, the appeal shall be heard and adjudicated by the Full Bench of the NIRC---Aggrieved person is required to file the said appeal within thirty days of such order---So, the petitioner, if feeling aggrieved by the said ex-parte judgment dated 09.11.2018 of the member NIRC, should have filed an appeal by 09.12.2018---It is a matter of record that the petitioner did not file any appeal, and the prescribed period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 58 of IRA expired; therefore, the said ex-parte judgment is final between the parties on the basis of the principle of res judicata---To justify the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte judgment, the petitioner, in the application for condonation of delay, asserted that he did not receive any notice or information regarding the pendency of the grievance petition filed by the respondent; he claimed to have knowledge about the ex-parte judgment on 10.12.2018 when he received an application from a former employee---However, this stance of the petitioner is self-contradictory as the record indicates that he, initially, appeared and participated in the proceedings before the member NIRC and opposed the grievance petition by filing a contesting written reply---Petitioner deliberately chose to abstain from joining the proceedings and displayed non-cooperation with the NIRC---Therefore, petitioner had no right to request its (NIRC) indulgence and seek the setting aside of the ex-parte decree passed against him---Petitioner chose to file an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment instead of filing an appeal under section 58 of IRA---Having failed in the attempt to set aside the ex-parte judgment, the petitioner cannot subsequently venture into other concurrently or coexisting available remedies, such as the remedy of an appeal under section 58 of IRA against the said ex-parte judgment---Petitioner did not file any application for condonation of delay under section 85 of the IRA read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 along with his appeal before the Full Bench of NIRC---Had the said application been filed, his appeal could have been decided on its merits rather than solely on the point of limitation---Appeal filed by petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Full Bench of NIRC, and by the High Court---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2024 PLC 104 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NPGCL, GENCO-III, TPS MUZAFARGARRAH VS KHALID UMAR TARIQ IMRAN Principles---Law of limitation provides an element of certainty in the conduct of human affairs---Law of limitation is a law that is designed to impose quietus on legal dissensions and conflicts; it requires that persons must come to Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence---Therefore, the limitation cannot be regarded as a mere technicality---With the expiration of the limitation period, valuable rights accrue to the other party.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NPGCL, GENCO-III, TPS MUZAFARGARRAH vs KHALID UMAR TARIQ IMRAN S — 2024 PLC 104 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC