Gepco CE’s plea against LHC verdict: No relief in limitation law if court moved after inordinate delay: SC

ISLAMABAD: The law of limitation reduces the effect of extinguishment of a right of a party when significant lapses occur and when no sufficient cause for such lapses, delay or time-barred action is shown by the defaulting party. The opposite party is entitled to a right accrued by such lapses.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, declared this on the appeal of Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco), Gujranwala against the verdict of Lahore High Court (LHC).

“There is no relaxation in law affordable to approach the court of law after deep slumber or inordinate delay under the garb of labeling the order or action void with the articulation that no limitation runs against the void order. If such tendency is not deprecated and a party is allowed to approach the court of law on his sweet will without taking care of the vital question of limitation, then the doctrine of finality cannot be achieved and everyone will move the court at any point in time with the plea of void order,” said the Supreme Court judgment.

It said that even if the order is considered void, the aggrieved person should approach more cautiously rather than waiting for lapse of limitation and then coming up with the plea of a void order which does not provide any premium of extending limitation period as a vested right or an inflexible rule.

PSO may acquire govt stakes in NPP, Gepco

The intention of the provisions of the law of limitation is not to give a right where there is none, but to impose a bar after the specified period, authorising a litigant to enforce his existing right within the period of limitation. The court is obliged to independently advert to the question of limitation and determine the same and to take cognizance of delay without limitation having been set up as a defence by any party. The omission and negligence of not filing the proceedings within the prescribed limitation period creates a right in favour of the opposite party.

The judgment said that the apex court in the case of Dr Muhammad Javaid Shafi Vs Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 SC 212), this court held that the law of limitation requires that a person must approach the court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence, without dilatoriness and negligence and within the time provided by the law, as against choosing his own time for the purpose of bringing forth a legal action at his own whim and desire. Because if that is so permitted to happen, it shall not only result in the misuse of the judicial process of the State, but shall also cause exploitation of the legal system and the society as a whole. This is not permissible in a State which is governed by law and Constitution. It may be relevant to mention here that the law providing for limitation for various causes/reliefs is not a matter of mere technicality but foundationally of the “Law” itself.

According to the details, Khalid Mehmood (respondent), working as LS-1 in Sub Division Sialkot was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 03.11.1999, issued by Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company Limited.

The respondent No 1 filed a departmental appeal against the said order on 25.11.1999, which remains undecided, therefore, he approached the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), Lahore, which was dismissed on 06.10.2003. He then filed a Grievance Petition before the Punjab Labour Court. The Labour Court reinstated the respondent on 06-05-2014. The petitioner challenged that order before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, which dismissed the appeal for being time barred on 08-01-2020. The appellant filed writ petitions in the LHC which were also dismissed vide judgment dated 08.01.2021.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022