Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑437 of 1982, decided on list May, 1983.

‑‑ S. 31 read with Limitation Act (X of 1908), S. 5‑Appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑Delay, condonation of‑Reasons of delay that Officer competent to file appeal remained on leave and last date of limitation expiring during his leave‑Leave neither due to illness nor for sudden cause but pre‑arranged‑No good cause, in circum stances, held, made out for condonation hence condonation applica tion rejected.

‑‑ S. 25‑A read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 7 Grievance petition accepted by Labour Court in ex parte order due to absence of counsel or any other representative of manage ment for whole day‑Petition for setting aside ex parte order made not on next date but on third date‑Petition. in circumstances, held, time‑barred and rightly rejected by Labour Court.

Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Appellant.

Saleem Baig for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th May, 1983.

The facts giving rise to this appeal preferred against the decision dated 21st June, 1982 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, are that the respondent who was salesman was dismissed from service in 1980 on the allegation of misappropriating Rs. 10014. During the pendency of his grievance petition under sec tion 25‑A compromise was effected between the parties and he was reins tated. He, therefore, withdraw his petition under section 25‑A. He was again charge‑sheeted, on 5th July, 1981 on the allegation that he had during the previous period misappropriated further amount of Rs. 7,319.61 also and was dismissed from service, on 11^th July, 1981. He challenged the order in a petition under section 25‑A. The grievance petition was accep ted ex parte on 2nd May, 1982. The petition of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decision was dismissed and the said order and ex parte decision both have been challenged in this appeal.

2. The appeal is time‑barred and application for condonation of delay has been given. The ground is that the officer who was competent to lodge the appeal had remained on leave from 18th July, 1982 to 21st July, 1982 and from 22nd July, 1982 to 25th July, 1983 were Eid holidays. The last day for bringing appeal after excluding the days spent is getting copy of the order was 20th July, 1982. It is not asserted that the leave was on the ground of illness. This is also not asserted that the officer went on leave all of a sudden. It appears that to celebrate Eid at home leave from 18th to 21st July, 1982 was obtained. So it was a pre‑arranged leave. The officer is presumed to know that the period for bringing appeal would expire during his leave, so he should have before proceeding on leave, lodged the appeal upto 17th. This is not shown why it was not possible. The matter is quite simple. Memorandum of appeal could be got drafted from a lawyer and the officer after signing it could have instructed the lawyer to present it in the Court, so no good cause for condonation of delay has been made out and the petition for condonation of delay is rejec ted.

3. Even on merits the appellant has no case. So far as the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decision is concerned, the grounds for non‑appearance were that the counsel had gone to Islamabad to appear in some case. This is not the case of the appellant that the counsel and put in appearance but before that the Court had proceeded ex parse. This is true that the lawyers have to run from one Court to the other but they are riot justified in totally ignoring some courts for the whole day. So, there was no apology for the counsel. So far as the officials who had been deputed to pursue the‑case are concerned, one had been transferred away and the other had gone on leave from 2nd May, 1982 to 10th May, 1982 on the ground of his father's death. Both the facts were in the e knowledge of the officer and he could have, if had cared to do so, deputed some other man to attend the Court. He could have in these circumstances get in appearance himself. But he intentionally neglected the case. No reason has been given why he did not deputed some other official and why he himself did not attend. So, the petition for setting aside ex parte pro ceedings was rightly disallowed. The petitioner was time barred also. Ex parse proceedings can be under Order IX rule 7 C. P. C. got set aside on or before the next date, but in the present case also petition was made on the third date.

4, The very charge‑sheet was time‑barred. The embezzlement is said to be of 1980 but charge‑sheet regarding misappropriation of Rs. 7,391 was given on 5th July, 1981. It is not shown that the charge‑sheet was given within one month of the detection of the misappropriation of Rs. 7,931.61.

5. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred as well as on merits.

A.E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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