Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SADIQ MASIH VS Respondent: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MIAN CHANNU
1988 P L C 501
1988 P L C 501
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal SADIQ MASIH
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MIAN CHANNU
Appeal No.MN-466 of 1985, decided on 13th April, 1986.
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 37--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12(2)--Limitation--Date of application for copy of order appealed against would be excluded Time requisite for obtaining copy is to be excluded--Copy of impugned order supplied on same date--One day, held, would be excluded for purposes of limitation.
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--Grievance petition--Presented by Advocate--Petitioner appearing in person before expiry of limitation period--Presentation of petition, held, would be proper in circumstances.
Ch. Nazir Hussain for Appellant.
Mian Nisar Saleem for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986.
JUDGMENT
The decision dated 11-7-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed for improper presentation.
2. An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is time-barred. The date of decision of the learned lower Court is 11-7-1985. Application for copy was made on 5-8-1985 and on the same day it was delivered. The appeal was presented in the office on 12-8-1985 and was ordered to be put up before me on 19-8-1985. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appeal could be presented on the same day on which copy was delivered and that the days which were available to the appellant to lodge the appeal before he had made application for copy would not be allowed to him, but he has not been able to give,; any reason for that. The appeal could be lodged up to 10-8-1985. After the copy was delivered to the appellant, he had five days at his disposal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the date on which the application for copy was made would also be excluded. According to section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, the time requisite for obtaining copy is to be excluded. 'Since the copy was supplied on the same day on which, application was made it is to be excluded but in spite of it the appeal is time-barred, inasmuch as in these circumstances it could be lodged at least on the 11th August which was a working day. There is no application for condonation of delay giving cogent reasons. In the absence of such an application, no question of condoning the delay arises. Needless to say that every day's delay is to be satisfactorily explained.
3. However, on merits the impugned order is not sustainable, inasmuch as on 11-7-1981 when still period of limitation for presenting the application was available, the appellant had appeared in person to pursue the case. The A.D. receipt under which the grievance' notice was sent carries the date as 10-5-1981 meaning thereby that the grievance petition could be presented upto 24- 1n-1981, therefore, in the presentation was proper. But since the appeal is time-barred, the impugned order cannot be set aside.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal dismissed as time-barred.
A. E. /78/Lb.P Appeal dismissed