Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROPRIETOR TAHIR SOAP FACTORY FAISALABAD VS Respondent: BASHIR AHMADHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
1988 P L C 522
1988 P L C 522
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
PROPRIETOR TAHIR SOAP FACTORY FAISALABAD
Versus
BASHIR AHMAD
Appeal No.FD‑10 of 1986, decided on 23rd February, 1987.
Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.30‑‑Appeal against order of Commissioner‑‑Limitation, condonation of delay‑‑Delay of each day has to be explained satisfactorily‑‑Valuable right accrues to respondent by lapse of time which he cannot be deprived of without any reason‑‑Appeal delayed by 3 days‑‑No application for condonation of delay‑‑Appeal, in circumstances, was dismissed as time‑barred.
Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant.
Sadiq Ali Hashmi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st February, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the order dated 17‑4‑1986 recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.3 500 for disbursement to Allah Ditta, who met with an accident while on duty resulting in the loss of his small finger and the finger next to it.
2. An objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal is time‑barred a‑nd no application for condonation of delay has been given by the appellant. The decision of the Commissioner is dated 17‑4‑86 but the appeal was lodged on 13‑7‑86. Application for copy of the order of the learned Commissioner for compensation was given on 21‑4‑86 and the copy was delivered on 14‑5‑1986 as mentioned in the seal affixed on the copy. The copy had been prepared on 3‑5‑1986. Even if the period spent in obtaining the copy is treated from 21‑4‑1986 to 14‑5‑1986, the appeal is time‑barred. The total period spent in obtaining the copy was 23 days and 4 days were lost by the appellant for making application for copy. Since the appeal was brought on 13‑7‑86, it was, therefore, time‑barred by 3 days. Since no application for condonation of delay has been given, there are no reasons to ignore the delay. Where an action is time‑barred, each day's delay is to be satisfactorily explained. A valuable right has accrued to the respondent by lapse of time which cannot be' denied to him without any reason.
3. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed as time‑barred.
A.E. /306/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.