Limitation in Labour Appeals

In W.P. No. 4736 of 2010, the Lahore High Court (LHC) addressed the issue of limitation in labour appeals filed by employees against The Bank of Punjab (BoP) regarding their dismissals. The case involved twelve writ petitions, collectively deciding whether the appeals filed before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) were time-barred and whether the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay.

Background:

The petitioner, The Bank of Punjab (BoP), challenged the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal’s decision, which had reinstated dismissed employees. The case involved employees who had been dismissed from service by BoP on July 17, 2004. The dismissed employees initially filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court, which were dismissed on January 7, 2005. They appealed to the Lahore High Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (IRO), which remanded the case back to the Labour Court on March 22, 2006.

The Labour Court once again dismissed their grievance petitions on February 24, 2007. The employees then filed appeals before the Lahore High Court under Section 47 of the IRO, 2002 on April 2, 2007, which were returned due to procedural objections. After several failed attempts to remove the objections, the appeals were finally re-filed on October 6, 2007, after a delay of over six months. With the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (IRA), the appeals were transferred to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeals on December 16, 2009. The BoP challenged this decision before the Lahore High Court, arguing that the appeals were time-barred and that the Tribunal had no authority to condone the delay.

Key Issues:

Applicability of Limitation Act, 1908: Whether the employees' appeals were time-barred under Section 47 of IRO, 2002, which required filing within 30 days.

Impact of Procedural Objections on Limitation Period: Whether the time spent in removing office objections could be excluded from the limitation period.

Jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal: Whether the Tribunal had the authority to condone the delay under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008.

Legal Consequences of Late Filing of Appeals: Whether failure to meet procedural deadlines warranted dismissal of appeals.

Applicability of Lahore High Court Rules and Orders: Whether the Labour Tribunal could override the procedural rules of the High Court regarding the filing and re-filing of appeals.

Court’s Analysis:

The Appeals Were Time-Barred: The Court determined that the limitation period for appeals under Section 47 of IRO, 2002, was 30 days. The employees initially filed their appeals on time (April 2, 2007), but the High Court’s office returned them due to procedural defects. The appeals were not re-filed until October 6, 2007, resulting in a delay of over six months, making them time-barred.

Procedural Objections Did Not Stop the Limitation Period: The Court emphasized that returning an appeal due to procedural objections does not extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1908. The delay in re-filing does not stop the running of time, and the appellant must file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Labour Tribunal Had No Jurisdiction to Condon the Delay: The Court ruled that the Labour Tribunal wrongly applied Sections 30(4) of IRO, 1969, Section 45(4) of IRO, 2002, and Section 53(4) of IRA, 2008, to justify condonation. These sections only exempted court fee requirements for labour cases but did not grant discretion to condone delay in appeals. The Tribunal’s decision to condone the delay was without legal basis and contrary to settled principles of limitation law.

High Court Rules and Limitation Act Apply to Labour Appeals: The Court held that under Article 202 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the High Court’s procedural rules apply to all cases filed before it, including labour appeals. The Labour Tribunal could not override these rules by disregarding limitation periods.

No Justifiable Reason for Condonation of Delay: The Court reviewed the employees’ application for condonation of delay, which cited the employees' belief that their appeals were filed on time and a general plea that justice should be prioritized over procedural technicalities. The Court rejected these arguments, ruling that each day of delay must be explained, and mere hardship does not justify ignoring limitation laws.

Court’s Conclusion:

The Lahore High Court ruled that the appeals were time-barred and should have been dismissed by the Labour Tribunal. The Tribunal’s decision condoning the delay was unlawful and was therefore set aside. The employees' appeals were dismissed as time-barred, effectively upholding their dismissals from BoP. Strict compliance with procedural deadlines is essential, and failure to meet limitation periods cannot be excused on equitable grounds.

Contact Us:

If you are facing labour disputes, banking employment terminations, or regulatory compliance issues, AUJ LAWYERS LLP provides expert legal counsel and representation. Our team specializes in employment law, labour litigation, and banking disputes, ensuring that your legal and financial interests are fully protected. For professional legal assistance, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP today.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.