Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. SUK‑602 of 1981, decided on 5th January, 1982.
‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Appeal filed about four months after date of impugned order‑No grounds for condonation of delay shown‑Dismissed as hopelessly time barred‑Observations of Tri bunal‑Government agencies making delay in appeal which becom ing time‑barred causing unnecessary expenditure on tax paying public‑Enquiry and necessary action against person responsible for delay desired.
Manzar Alam for Appellants.
Hassan Hameedi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th January, 1982.
This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned V1Ith Labour Court, given on 28th May, 1981, holding that the removal from service of the respondent workman was invalid, in that the removal was effected without giving the respondent a show‑cause notice or charge sheet and holding a domestic enquiry.
2. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal has been raised by Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned counsel for the respondent workman. He has submitted that the impugned decision was given on 28th May: 1981. The endorsement on the certified copy of the decision filed with the memo of appeal shows that the copy of the decision was ready on 28th May, 1981. However, an application for being furnished the copy was submitted on behalf of the appellant on 8th June, 1981. On the same date, copy of the decision was delivered to the appellants. Since the appeal was preferred on 25th October, 1981, and no grounds have been shown for the condonation of delay, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is accordingly dismissed on that ground.
3. It has been my experience that appeals by Government agencies are generally delayed. This is unfortunate as not only the appeals in such cases become time‑barred but the Government has unnecessarily to incur and pay liabilities which may not really be due. The said expenditure in turn, falls upon the public from whom it is recovered info the form of taxes, etc.
4. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Chief Engineer, Highways, for making enquiries as to who is responsible for allowing the appeal to be time‑barred and for taking such action against the persons responsible for the delay as may be considered appropriate.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer