Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision Petition No. LHR‑5 of 1984, decided on 12thMay, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908) , S. 14‑‑Limitation‑‑Exclusion of period spent before wrong forum‑‑Application giving reasons‑ Essential‑‑Appeal against Order of Authority‑‑Time spent in review petition before Authority sought to be excluded‑‑No application made‑ View that it was not necessary to invoke provisions of S. 14, Limitation Act, 1908 expressly by making application‑‑Repelled.
Saleem Khan for Petitioner.
Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th April, 1985.
The decision, dated 30‑10‑1983 recorded by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts giving rise to the revision are that an accident took place while the respondent was driving the bus of the petitioner resulting in injuries to him. He brought an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for claiming gratuity on two counts namely under the rules of the petitioner and under section 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The total amount claimed by him was Rs.23,335.50. The learned authority, vide its order, dated 29‑3‑1982 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount due to the respondent without determining the question of gratuity. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the learned Appellate Court which was accepted and the case was remanded, vide order, dated 22‑7‑1982 for fresh decision. In compliance with the previous order, dated 29‑3‑1982 the petitioner had assessed the amount at Rs.9,701.55 and had deposited the same in the office of the Authority, which the respondent had withdrawn. After the case was remanded, the learned Authority fixed the amount of gratuity to Rs.23,335.50. It was directed that after deducting Rs.9,701.55 already deposited the remaining Rs.13,634 be deposited. A review petition was brought before the Authority seeking correction by reducing the amount to Rs.13,634. The said petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner challenged the said order and the original order, dated 18‑12‑1982 in appeal before the learned Appellate Court. So far the appeal related to the order, dated 18‑12‑1982 it was dismissed as time‑barred and the appeal was disallowed so far as it challenged the order, dated 28‑2‑1983 on the ground that no appeal lay. The said order passed by the Authority has been challenged in this revision.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal against the order, dated 18‑12‑1982 was not time‑barred inasmuch as the time spent in making review petition should have been excluded by the learned lower Appellate Court and it was not necessary to invoke the provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act expressly by making an application. So far as the review is concerned it has been argued that under the General Clauses Act the Authority was competent to review its order.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that even if the period spent in the decision of the review petition is excluded in appeal before the learned lower Court was time‑barred. Reliance is placed upon 1985 P L C 7.
5. So far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no application for condonation was necessary, is not forceful. To attract section 14 of the Limitation Act, 4t is necessary to s .ow that the party seeking the exclusion of period has been litigating in the wrong forum with bona fide intention. Obviously reasons are to be given in an application. Needless to say that only the party seeking condonation knows for what reasons it went to the wrong Court. The Court has not to find out the grounds to see if the intention was bona fide. Only the party has to put forward the grounds. As no application was made for excluding the time spent in the decision of the review petition the learned lower Appellate Court rightly held the appeal brought against the original order of the Authority as time‑barred
6. So far as the review petition is concerned there was no justification to ask for any correction even it be said that the Authority was competent to review its order. Correction sought for was not on account of slip of pen or arithmetical calculations. The Authority clearly held that the respondent was entitled to Rs.23,335.50. Direction was given to deposit Rs.13,634 because admittedly in pursuance of the previous order the petitioner had found that the respondent was entitled to Rs.9,701.50 only and the said amount had already been deposited by the petitioner and withdrawn by the respondent. It has not been shown that it was proved on the record that the respondent was entitled to Rs.13, 634 only. So no question of review could arise and the petition was rightly dismissed. The learned Appellate Court has correctly held that the Authority had no power of review.
7. As a result of the observation made above the revision fails and is dismissed.
A. E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer