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 No.MN‑213 of 1985, decided on 3rd February, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Date of impugned order and time spent in obtaining copy‑‑Excludable‑ Application for copy made on date next to date of order‑‑No chit indicating date of collection issued‑‑Period till delivery of copy, in circumstances, held, was to be excluded.
Fazal‑e‑Hussain for Petitioner.
H.R. Haider for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.
The decision, dated 19‑2‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and the order, dated 26‑6‑1984 of the learned Authority under the said Act are reported to he without jurisdiction, wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The question in dispute before the Authority was if the respondent was an intermittent or continuous worker. The Authority held that he was a continuous worker and thus allowed to him over time wages for working beyond duty hours. The appeal was dismissed as time‑barred holding that copy was ready on 28‑6‑1984 but was obtained on 9‑7‑1984. The learned lower Appellate Court computed the period spent in getting copy upto 29‑6‑1984 accepting the statement of C.W.I who deposed that orally the date for the collection of copy is informed to the party applying for copies. I cannot endorse this view. Since no chit was given indicating the date for collection of copy, the represen tative of the petitioner did not know when the copy was to be received, so he rightly went to the learned Authority on 9‑7‑1984 to collect the copy and the period upto 8‑7‑1984 should have been excluded. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that even if the period upto the date on which copy was delivered is excluded, yet the appeal was time‑barred. This is not so. The petition under section 15 was accepted on 26‑6‑1984. Application for copy was presented on 27‑6‑1984. On 9‑7‑1984 copy was collected. The date on which the order was announced by the Authority i.e. 26‑6‑1984 is to be excluded. Since on 27th application for copy was given, no time was lost. Copy was obtained on 9‑7‑1984. The time started from that date and expired on 7‑8‑1984 the month of July being of 31 days. If it had been of 30 days, the time would have expired on 8‑7‑1984. The appeal was presented on 7‑8‑1,984, so was within time. The learned Presiding Officer was on vacation as is evident from the order, dated 7‑8‑1984, so even if the appeal had been filed late on the said date, it would have not been barred by time as the Court was closed for vacation. So, the appeal was not time‑barred. As the learned lower Appellate Court did not record decision on merits, the appeal is to be remanded.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Appellate Court, the appeal is remanded for decision on merits.
A.E.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer