Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RIGHT BANK TUBEWELL DIVISION, VS Respondent: RATODERE MUHAMMAD HASSAN
1993 P L C 388
1993 P L C 388
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RIGHT BANK TUBEWELL DIVISION, RATODERE
versus
MUHAMMAD HASSAN
Appeal No. SUK‑533 of 1991, decided on 7th December, 1992.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑-‑
‑‑‑‑S. 38‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Appeal against order of trial Court was filed with delay of about 11 months and alongwith appeal, application for condonation of delay was also filed‑‑‑Each and every day of delay had not been explained by appellant and circumstances mentioned in application for condonation of delay, also had not made out sufficient cause to condone delay‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances being barred by time.
Abdul Sattar Khatri for Appellant.
Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th December, 1992.
DECISION
The appeal was filed with the delay of about 11 months and there is an application for condonation of delay.
2. All that Mr. Abdul Sattar Khatri learned counsel for the appellant had to say, was that the Executive Engineer by the name of Mr. Jan Muhammad had entrusted the work of preferring the appeal to his Assistant Engineer by the name of Muhammad Bux Halapota but he could not attend to the matter diligently as he had been transferred elsewhere. And when he learnt of the delay, he directed for "earliest steps to be taken for the filing of appeal".
3. All this shows the utmost carelessness and indifference of the authorities to the discharge of their official responsibilities. The transfer of Mr. Muhammad Bux Halapota could not be a secret, and even the particulars and details are not available. It is not even remotely mentioned as to when the deponent came to know about the circumstances. Each and every day of delay had to be explained and it is not there. All this does not make sufficient cause to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. I will therefore dismiss the appeal on this short ground alone.
H.B.T./2135/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.