MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs The PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE Ss

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

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS The PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE Ss. 25-a & 65-B---Grievance petition, filing of---Limitation---Grievance petition filed after a lapse of 22 years---Under Section 25a of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ("IRO 1969"), there is a specific timeframe for lodging the grievance in writing which cannot be stretched over an unlimited period of time---Law does not envisage that after expiry of the limitation period, if the employer gives a response to any time-barred grievance notice, it will amount to an extension in the period of limitation provided to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for redress of individual grievances---No cause of action subsists merely for the reason that one letter was replied after the lapse of the limitation period by the employer's management, which could not extend the starting point of limitation provided under the law for a workman to lodge his grievance before instituting the grievance petition in the Labour Court---No proper justification had been shown in the Order of the Labour Court and/or the impugned judgment of the High Court as to how, against the dismissal order on 25.05.1976, a grievance notice dated 26.04.1997 was found to be within time---Even for condonation of delay, nothing was mentioned by the respondent/workman before the Labour Court or the High Court---act of sending a grievance notice and filing a grievance petition in the Labour Court or Commission has not been left open-ended but it is linked with the time constraint for initiating legal action for the redress of an individual grievance---Under the mandate of law an employee is supposed to deliver the grievance notice to his employer within the specified time, then wait only for the statutory period provided to the employer for the response, and after the lapse of this period, whether the notice was responded to or not by the employer, approach the Court immediately rather than spoiling or obliterating the period of limitation---It is a fundamental duty of the Court to examine the question of limitation vis-a-vis the statutory provisions envisioned under special or general law, requiring compliance of an act within a specific timeline---In the present case both the Labour Court and the High Court failed to advert to the crucial question of limitation provided for transmitting the grievance notice as provided in the repealed IRO 1969, and without appreciating the law and evidence led in the case, rendered the impugned judgments, which were not sustainable and were liable to be set aside, while the judgment of the Punjab appellate Tribunal was based on the correct exposition of law---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; as a consequence thereof, the judgment of the High Court and the Labour Court were set-aside and the judgment passed by the Punjab Labour appellate Tribunal was restored.

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs The PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE Ss — 2025 SCMR 269 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR