1971 PLP 446 (PLC)

S. 37‑Appeal-- Limitation‑Time taken for obtaining copy, of impugned award‑To be excluded‑Appellant failing to apply for copy of award imme diately after announcement of award in open Court‑Time interven ing between date of award and date of application for copy‑Not to be excluded‑Appeal filed after expiry of 'limitation period, in circumstances, held, time‑barred. S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. Mahmood A. Ghani for Respondent. Date of bearing: 18th January 1971. This is an appeal against an Award dated the 16th of November 1970, whereby the learned Chairman of the First Sind Labour Court rejected some of the demands of the appellant Union. The appeal was filed on the 22nd of December 1970. On the face of it the appeal should have been filed admittedly on the 15th of December 1970. Mr. Lodhi, the learned Representative for the appellant contends that the appeal is within time on two folds grounds which I propose to dispose of presently. 2. In the first place it was contended that under section 37, the Award has to be given in writing and delivered in open Court. This was not done inasmuch as the Award was not given in writing on the 16th of November 1970. The order‑sheet of the 16th of November 1970, however, reads as under:‑ 'The Representatives of the parties are present. Vide my Award announced in open Court today, Demands Nos. 1, 2 (a), 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are rejected and this case be now fixed for hearing on Demands Nos. 2 (b), 7 and 8 on merits. Call up on 15‑12‑1970." The order‑sheet is supported by the Award itself which is dated 16th of November 1970. In that view of the matter it is impossible to hold that the Award was not given in writing and delivered is open Court within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations ordinance, 1969. 3. In the second place Mr. Lodhi contended that the application for copy of the Award was taken to the Reader of the Court who did not take it on the ground that the ward was not ready. The Reader of the Court took the application for copy of the Award on the 24th of November 1970. The submission is that the time taken for obtaining the copy of the Award should be excluded from the date that the appellant presented application for obtaining the copy of the Award to the Reader up to the date that he got the copy, that is, to the Reader up to the date that he got the copy, that is, up to the 24th of November 1970. This is not possible to do. The applicant should have presented the application for copy of the Award to the Court on 17th of November 1970, and not kept it with himself till the 24th of November 1970. It is true, as I have held in number of cases, that the time taken for obtaining copy of the impugned Order will be excluded for filing the appeal. The‑ appellant will be entitled to only one day as the copy wag delivered to him on the same day that he made application for the copy of the impugned Order. At any rate, there was ample time for the appellant to have filed the appeal. He had almost three weeks for filing the appeal when he got copy of the Award. In these circumstances, firstly I would hold as section 5 of the Limitation Act hay not been applic able. I have no power to condone the delay. In the second place, even if I have power to condone the delay there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The appeal is dismissed as time‑barred.