Find a Lawyer

Appeal No, 345 of 1974, decided on 19th June 1975.

---Ss. 25-A & 36-D read with S. 65-B and Limitation Apt (IX of 1908), S. 5-Limitation Condonation of delay--- Application for condonation submitted with petition under S. 25 -A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 - Petition dismissed as time-barred by Junior Labour Court without taking into consideration prayer for condonation of delay-Appeal, in circumstances, under S, 36-D of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 accepted and case remanded for decision on merit after decision on condonation application.

Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant.

Muhammad Hussain Naz, Asstt.

Traffic Manager for Respondent.

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan dated 11-12-1974 whereby the petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by Amir Khan appellant was dismissed as being time barred. The preliminary point raised in this appeal is regarding limitation bar for original petition. The appeal is acceptable on the short ground that an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 65-13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1909, submitted by the appellant in the learned lower Court is not traceable on its record despite a reply statement to the said application being present on the file. The representative of the respondent-Management Mr. Muhammad Hussain, A. T. M. has not denied the fact that an application for the condona tion of the deley was filed by the appellant which stands evidenced by the reply statement of the respondent. The points raised by the learned counsel or the appellant for the condonation of deley have not been discussed in ttie impugned order and are said to have been detailed in the application in question now missing from the record, it can easily, be concluded that the necessary material before the learned lower Court was not taken into account wile deciding the case. There is no alternative but to demand the case to the learned lower Court for redecision after recording finding A as to the submission or otherwise of the missing application in case the said application is found to have been filed in the Court and was misplaced untraceably, it would be reconstructed in due course on the evidence of the parties and being placed on the record, fresh decision will be given on merits. The case being remanded accordingly the parties are bound t4 appear in that Court on 23-6-1975.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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