Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑317 and 318 of 1984, decided on 23rd December,1985.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 12 (2)‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑ Time spent in obtaining copy of impugned order would be excluded‑ Application for copy made on date on which order passed‑‑Date of delivery of copy not disputed‑‑Limitation period for appeal, in circumstances, held, would start from date of delivery of copy.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A s 38 (3)‑‑Presentation of petition‑‑Plea at appellate stage that petition presented by counsel hence presentation was not proper‑ Petitioner‑respondent contending that though he was also present his presence not recorded by Labour Court‑‑Controversy, held, could not be resolved without affording opportunity of evidence to parties‑ Appellate Tribunal while, accepting appeal, set aside impugned order and remanded case to Labour Court for re‑decision after evidence by parties on point of presentation of petition.

Ch. Muhammad Ramzan for Appellant.

Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, Representative for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985.

The above captioned two appeals arise from the decisions, dated 25‑4‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the respondents were directed to be re‑instated in service leaving the appellants to proceed against them for absence, if any. In the written statements it was contended by the appellant that the respondents had not been removed from service but they were absent from duty.

2. Before the appeals could not be heard on merits, the respondents raised objection that the appeals were time‑barred, whereas the appellant has in both the appeals made miscellaneous applications for the rejection of the grievance petitions on the ground that they were not presented by the respondents themselves but by their counsel. As common questions mentioned above are involved in the two appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

3. So for as the question of limitation is concerned, the Reader of the learned lower Court has deposed that the date of presentation of copy is wrongly given in the seal affixed on the copy of the judgment and that in reality the copy was prepared on 5‑5‑1984 and was delivered on that date. The evidence of R.W.‑1 is that on 25‑4‑1984 when the judgment was announced at Okara, application for copy was given. The learned Presiding Officer had asked to collect the copy on 30‑4‑1984 at Multan. He further stated that on 30‑4‑1984 he was asked to come on 5‑5‑1984 to get the copy and that on the said date i.e. 5‑5‑1984 copy was delivered. There is no evidence in rebuttal. Since copy was supplied on 5‑5‑1984 the period of limitation started from the said date and thus both the appeals are within time.

4. So far as the objection taken by the appellant is concerned, the respondents have in their reply to the miscellaneous applications contended that they were present in person on the date of presentation of the grievance petitions but by mistake the learned lower Court did not record their presence. The controversy cannot be resolved without giving opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. If evidence is taken in this Court and finding is recorded, right of appeal will be lost to the unsuccessful party. So the case is to be remanded. Setting aside of the impugned decisions is also necessary, so that if the learned lower Court finds that the presentation was not proper, it could reject the grievance petition.

5. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned lower Court, the cases are remanded with the direction that after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the question of presentation of the grievance petitions should be decided. If the learned lower Court finds that the presentation was proper, it shall redecide the cases on merits.

A. E Appeals accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.