Find a Lawyer

Appeal LHR‑731 of 1977, decided on 24th March, 1982.

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition‑Limitation ‑ Delay Every day of delay to be properly explained‑Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and copy of order obtained next day‑Petition before right Court filed with delay of 13 days after obtaining copy of order on previous petition‑No explanation offered‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly disallowed application for condonation of delay dismissing petition as time‑barred.

1976 S C M R 102 and P L D 1974 S C 22 distinguished.

Ch. Ghazanfar Ejaz for Appellant.

Muhammad Taqi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 2nd October, 1977 passed by the learned Presiding Officer'. Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a Purchase Incharge in the respondent factory appointed on 29th November, 1973. According to the appellant, he was stopped from performing his duties in February, 1877. He, therefore, brought the grievance petition for his reinstatement. The stand taken by the respondents was that the appellant had abandoned of his own accord and in collusion with certain officers got himself marked present on certain dates and without leave applications marked himself on leave in the attendance register.

3. In the beginning the appellant had brought the grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore on 27th April, 1977 but it was dismissed on 25th July, 1977 for want of territorial jurisdiction. On 7th August, 1977 the appellant brought a fresh grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, which was dismissed on 2nd October, 1977 as time-‑barred. Copy of the order of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore was obtained on 26th July, 1977. Firstly, obtaining o1 copy was not necessary, because in the written statement a clear objection was raised that on account of the notification of the Government, Labour Court No. 2 had no territorial jurisdiction. Even in spite of, getting the copy of the order, fresh petition was not brought before Labour Court No. 7 without further loss of time. Copy was obtained on 26th July, 1917 so the grievance petition should have been brought on the following day i.e. 27th July, 1977 but it was brought with 13 days delay. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the period spent in the wrong forum could not be excluded from consideration, because section 14 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and only section 5 of the said Act has been made applicable. Even if the said period is excluded since the petition was made after further 13 days' delay, in the absence of cogent reason to explain the delay, the petition could not be regarded as within time. In the application for condonation of delay there is absolutely no explanation whether the time after obtaining the copy of the order of Labour Court No. 2 was spent. Where there is a delay in bringing any action, every day A of delay is to be properly explained. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1976 S C M R 102 and P L D 1974 S C 22. In the second mentioned authority it has been observed that the mistaken advice of the counsel may be considered sufficient ground for condonation. In this case there was no counter‑affidavit from the other party, therefore, the grounds given for condonation were accepted. In the present case as I have mentioned above, absolutely no ground is given to explain the delay which occurred after Labour Court No. 2 had dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction and the date on which fresh petition was brought before Labour Court No. 7. The observations made to 1976 S C M R 102 are:‑

"Her further contention that she was not bound by the admissions of the said alleged Sardar Begum was also repelled on the ground that, in the meantime, other persons had acquired vested rights in these lands and those rights could not be taken away unless valid grounds were made out for the condonation of the delay. In a civil matter each day's delay has to be satisfactorily explained."

It is apparent from the above quotation that this authority is also not helpful to the appellant and rather goes against him. According to this ruling, every day's delay is to be explained which, as observed by me above, has not been explained. The learned lower Court, therefore, was right in disallowing the application for condonation of delay and dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant as time‑barred.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

A. B.

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.