Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR.‑160 of 1969, decided on 28th May 1969.

----S. 16 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. S‑Belated appeal‑ Condonation of delay‑Appeal delayed for 3J years‑appellant's pursuing remedy before criminal Court and before authority appointed under Payment of Wages Act‑Not sufficient cause for condonation of delay‑Prayer for condonation of delay;, in circumstances, rejected and appeal dismissed as time‑barred‑ Delay must be explained with sufficient cause where law provides certain fixed period for filing appeal.

Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, West Zone, Chittagong v. A. K. M. Waliullah Chowdhury P L D 1966 S C 788 distinguished.

Mirza Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant.'

Naseerul Hasan for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 28th May 1969.

This is an appeal against an award dated 23rd December 1965. The award was given by the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore. The facts giving rise lo the present appeal are these.

2. The appellant was employed as a driver in the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. He was dismissed from service on 2bth October 1964, on the ground of rash and negligent driving, He was charged for having killed a boy aged about 10 years. The criminal Court gave him benefit of doubt.

3. The learned Industrial Court set aside the order dismissing him from service on the ground that the appellant was not given an opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses at the time of domestic trial. The Industrial Court ordered re‑instatement of the appellant and observed that his absence to be treated as leave without pay. It, however, further observed that it was open to the Department to proceed against him afresh and if he was found guilty proper order may be passed against him. In case he was exonerated from the charge, he would be entitled to full pay from the date that he was dismissed from service to the date he was re‑instated. Before the award was given the appellant had joined Army on 2nd December 1965. He remained in the Army up to 20^th August 1966. Thereafter, he was re‑instated t the Department with effect from 27th August 1966.

4. The appellant made an application under section 42 the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1968, for interpretation of the award dated 23rd December i 965, on 10th April 1969. In the said application he also prayed that if the application for interpretation of the award did not lie, the same may be treated as an appeal. I treated the application as an appeal. The appellant has made an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay. There is about 3J years delay in filing the appeal. The appeal shoul4 have been filed within 30 days of the award, which was give on 23rd December 1965. The ground for condonation of delay is that the appellant had been pursuing the remedy before the criminal Court and before the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act. It was only then the authority did not allow him wages that he filed the appeal on 10th April 1969. The learned Representative for the appellant has relied on that case of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, West Zone, Chittagong v. A. K. M. Waliullah Chowdhurv (P L D 1966 S C 788). In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered that the application for writ petition could not be dismissed on ground of delay, as the applicant was pursuing his remedy before the Department. It was not a case where the law provided certain period during which an appeal had to be filed. I am of the A opinion that the appellant has not been able to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay of the period of 3 years under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application is dismissed. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed as time‑barred.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.