| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6211 2024 SLD 6211 = 2024 PLC 100 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-1320 of 2017, decided on 22nd November, 2022.
Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, JJ
Muhammad Nishat Warsi for Petitioner. Ehsanullah for
Respondents. Abdul Jalil Zubedi, Additional Advocate General.
Constitutional Petition No.D-1320 of 2017, decided on 22nd November, 2022.
Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, JJ
Muhammad Nishat Warsi for Petitioner. Ehsanullah for
Respondents. Abdul Jalil Zubedi, Additional Advocate General.
KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. through Managing Director
VERSUS
SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another
Law: Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013
Section: XXIX,34
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013)-------S. 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Grievance petition---Right, accrual of---Limitation---Higher pay-scale of worker, entitlement to---Grievance of the Worker, who was initially appointed in pay-scale-02 , was that he ought to have been appointed in pay-scale -05---Labour Court dismissed grievance petition of the worker for having been filed after sixteen years of accrual of his alleged grievance--Employer (Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd.) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as the Labour Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') allowed appeal preferred by the worker reversing the findings of the Labour Court holding the limitation was mere technicality---Validity---Ambit of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not that of a subsequent forum of statutory appeal and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the judgment impugned---It is also duty of High Court to ensure that any discretion exercised by the subordinate forum was done judiciously pursuant to sound legal principles and not contrary to law or usage having the force of law---In the present case, evidence (including the relevant cross-examination) having been adduced by the grievance petitioner (worker) in the proceedings before the Labour Court demonstrated that the petitioner was aware of his pay-scale at the time of his appointment in the year 1995; he admitted having received the salary from time to time and clearly stated that the terms of engagement never said that his employment would be in pay-scale 5---Prescriptions of limitation are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire law of limitation otiose---It is incumbent upon the Courts to first determine whether the proceedings filed before them were within time and the Courts are mandated to conduct such a exercise regardless of whether or not an objection has been taken in such regard--Each day of delay had to be explained---Section 34 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 provides a time-period of three months for a worker to bring his grievance to light, from the date of…