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.
Appeal No. R.Y.K.HAN‑73 of 1984, decided on 4th June, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 37 & 38(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908). S. 5‑‑Appeal‑ Limitation‑‑‑ Condonation of delay‑‑Filing of appeal beyond period of limitation on wrong advice of counsel‑‑Appellant, in filing appeal, held, not only acted on wrong advice of counsel but also was not vigilant enough to go in appeal soon after acceptance of other appeals having bearing on case of appellant for which he was advised to wait‑‑Valuable right accrued to respondent by lapse of time due to gross negligence of appellant ‑Condonation refused and appeal dismissed as time‑barred.
Aqa Asif Jaffry for Appellant.
Pervaiz Ahmad Bajwa for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 31st May 1986
The decision dated 18‑8‑1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged in the appeal brought on 1‑3‑1984 with an application given under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. The appellant alongwith some other employees was removed from" service on the allegation of misconduct. All of them had challenged the order in their grievance petitions given under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They were dismissed on the ground that the appellant and others were not workmen. Except the appellant, the others had challenged the order in appeals which were accepted and setting aside the decisions of the learned lower Court, the cases were remanded for fresh decision on the point of workman as well as on merits. They were ultimately directed to be re‑instated in service vide order, dated 19‑12‑1983. Thereafter, the appellant preferred this highly belated appeal. The ground of condonation of delay is that two lawyers namely Muhammad Ashraf Zafar and Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad advised him to wait till this tribunal had decided the appeals brought by others. Affidavits of the said two lawyers have been brought on the file of this appeal. No doubt the affidavits of the two lawyers have not been controverted by any counter‑affidavit but there is no material to presume that the said lawyers practise on the labour side and that they are leading lawyers. Again even if it be said that the appellant acted on the wrong advice of the lawyers and did not file the appeal within one month, but there is no satisfactory explanation why the appellant was not vigilant enough to challenge the order in appeal soon after the other persons were vide order, dated 19‑12‑1983 directed to be re‑instated in service. Even from the order, dated 19‑12‑1983 the appeal is time barred by two months and ten days. A valuable right has accrued to the respondent by lapse of time due to the gross A negligence of the appellant which cannot be refused without sufficient reason. The respondent may have employed other person in the vacancy of the appellant who even may have been confirmed. For the fault of the appellant another innocent person should not be thrown out of service. 1, therefore, decline to condone the delay.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer