Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑226 of 1982, heard on 5th May, 1982.

‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Delay‑Condonation‑Delay of one day‑Grounds that attempt to file on last date failed due to brake‑failure of Bus in which person authorised to file appeal was travel ling‑Circumstances indicative that ‑another Bus could be caught‑ Reaching office of Tribunal in time not beyond his control‑Delay not condoned and appeal rejected as time‑barred.

Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 5th May, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 8th March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service commuting the penalty of dismissal to the withdrawal of two increments.

2. The appeal is time‑barred and an application for condonation of delay has been attached to it supported by an affidavit. The grounds given is that Mr. Faqir Muhammad, Municipal Prosecutor, who was authorised to file the appeal, had to bring the power‑of‑attorney in favour of the learned counsel from Gujranwala. He got busy in connection with cases pending at Gujranwala due to the absence of Mr. Jan Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate who used to conduct the cases of Municipal Corporation at that place. The Municipal Prosecutor is alleged to have boarded the bus from Gujranwala at 12‑15 p. m. but between Kamoke and Muridke the brakes of the bus failed, therefore, he reached Lahore at 2‑15 p.m. After going to the Office of Ch, Hamid‑ud‑Din, Advocate, he reached the office of this Tribunal at 3‑15 p. m, but by that time the office had been closed, therefore he could not present the appeal on the said date. It was the last day for the presenta tion of the appeal. The appeal was presented on the following day.

3. The grounds given for condonation of delay are not sufficient. Since Mr. Faqir Muhammad, Municipal Prosecutor, was aware that he had got the bus late at 12‑15 p m. he should have got another bus when the brakes of the bus which he had boarded at Gujranwala. If he had done so, he would have spent Rs. 2 or so only but could have saved the appeal from becoming time‑barred. Needless to say that between Gujranwala and Lahore after every five minutes buses pass, therefore, he could catch any bus from the place where his bus had failed, if he had cared to do so. He was guilty of gross negligence in not making attempt to reach this Tribunal in time. It cannot be said that it was beyond his control to reach the Tribunal within office hours. The appeal, therefore, is rejected as time‑barred.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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