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. FD‑404 of 1983, decided on 22nd April, 1984.
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition before Labour Court Limitation Condonation of delay‑Sufficient ground‑Illness of petitioner Medical certificate indicating that petitioner suffering from anxieties Not in such position as not following his daily pursuits‑‑Held: No case of condonation of delay made out.
H. R. Haider for Appellant.
Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th April, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 13th June, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant as time barred.
2. The appellant was a Chowkidar. He was charge‑sheeted on the allegation that he had deceived the respondent‑bank by leaving the columns of age and qualification blank while: applying for recruitment. Grievance notice is, dated 10th August, 1982. (Copy Exh. P. 3). Postal receipt is, dated 12th August, 1982. Petition was lodged on 12th February, 1983. The ground for condonation of delay was illness. Medical certificate is Exh. P. 1. It is, dated 9th February, 1983 and is to the effect that the appellant is fit, It has been argued that the statement of the appellant that he was ill on 9th February, 1983 was not rebutted and that since time of the issuance of medical certificate is not given in Exh. P. 1, it is to be taken that it was issued on. the night between 9th and 10th February, 1983. He has further argued that on 10th the petition was got prepared and 11th being Friday it was rightly lodged on 12th February, 1983. The appellant stands contradicted by the medical certificate Exh. P. 1 produced by him. The doctor P. W. 1 said that the appellant was suffering from anxiety and that it was a mental case and the appellant was in a position to follow his daily pursuits. Anxiety is no disease and the appellant was in a position to follow his daily pursuits. In spite of his anxieties he was in a position to bring the grievance petition within 2 months of the grievance notice. The petition could be lodged on 9th or 10th of February, 1983. No case of condonation of delay has been made out. The petition, therefore, was rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer