Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑395 of 1983, decided on 12^th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Delay of about eight months‑‑Contention that impugned order was without jurisdiction hence no question of limitation could arise‑‑Impugned order contended to be without juris diction on plea that respondent (employee) was a civil servant‑‑Whether or not respondent was a civil servant‑‑Mixed question of fact and law‑‑No objection on such point taken in written statement before Labour Court‑‑Contention that impugned decision of Labour Court was without jurisdiction, in circumstances, repelled and appeal, held, could not escape question of limitation.

‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Memorandum of appeal not signed by appellant‑‑Not maintainable.

Ghulam Hasan Gulshan for Appellant.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984.

The decision dated 20‑10‑1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The appeal is time‑barred by about eight months but no application for condonation of delay has been made. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the respondent being a civil servant, no question of limitation arises. He has cited P L D 1956 F C 72, P L D 1954 F C 74, 1976 P L C 22 and P L D 1970 Lah. 6. The point whether the respondent is a civil servant is a mixed question of fact and law but no such objection was taken in the written statement. It was contended that the respondent was not a workman but it is not contended that he was a civil servant. A person who is though covered by the definition of workman as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. yet can be a civil servant. So, the question of civil servant is independant to the question whether one is not a workman as the term stands defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Since no plea of the respondent being a civil servant was raised, it cannot be said that the impugned decision is without jurisdiction and thus the question of the appeal being time‑barred very much arises. Since there is no application for condonation of delay, I cannot refuse the valuable right that has accrued to the respondent by the lapse of tine.

3. Not only the appeal is time‑barred, even no proper authority brought the appeal. The, grievance petition was against the Executive Engineer, Bhakkar Division but the appellant before me is Director (Legal). The other defect is that even the Director (Legal) who is mentioned as the appellant has not signed the memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel made application for permission to allow the appellant to sign the memo. of appeal but the Director (Legal) did neither sign that application, nor appeared to put his signatures on the memo. of appeal. So, no proper appeal is before this Court uptil now.

4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred and as being incompetent.

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.