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.
Civil Petition' No. 614‑R of 1983, decided on 16th April, 1984:
(Against the judgment and order, dated 8‑6‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 205 of 1983).
‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art, 9‑ Petition for leave to appeal barred by 82 days‑No explanation available for delay nor any justification shown for its condonation‑ High Court, even otherwise, found to have left open an avenue for remedy for petitioner‑Leave to appeal refused.
Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Karam Elahie Bhatti, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing :16th April, 1984.
.‑The petitioner being the employer seeks leave appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 8‑6‑1983 whereby the order of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the dismissal of the respondent from service and directing his rein statement, was dismissed in limine.
The respondent was an employee of the petitioner. He was convicted for receiving fare without issuing tickets and was sentenced to a petty fine and his conductor's licence was" cancelled. He thereafter obtained a fresh conductor's licence from D. S. P. (Traffic), Licensing Authority. The petitioner considered the fresh licence not to be a valid one for the reason that he had not disclosed while obtaining it that the earlier licence had been cancelled for a misconduct. The Labour Court directed that the reinstate ment of the respondent which order as was upheld by the Appellate Authority on the ground that as he was possessed of a valid conductor's licence, his services could not be terminated. The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but failed.
The petition is shown to be barred by 82 days. There is no application seeking condonation of the delay. There is no explanation available for the delay. The petition is, therefore, clearly time‑barred and there is no justification for condonation of delay. Even otherwise we find that by the impugned order, the High Court has left open an avenue for the petitioner and it is of getting the respondent's fresh licence cancelled on the grounds stated. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused.
S. Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer