1993 PLC 70 (PLP)

3. On 19‑8‑1990 be has sent a grievance notice to the respondent which was not acceded and returned. A second notice was repeated on 22‑9‑1990 and again met with the same fate. It was the third notice, dated 7‑10‑1990, which came to be accepted and the reply thereto indicated that the same was time‑barred.

4. The appellant then filed the petition before the Labour Court on 2310‑1990 which came to be resisted on a number of grounds. The one material for our purposes, is that the grievance notice was time‑barred The petition came to be dismissed solely on that ground and the merit remained un‑examined.

5. The impugned order was passed on 1‑12‑1991 and copy was supplied on 2‑12‑1991. The Court closed for the Winter Vacations on the 26th and re opened on 9‑1‑1992. The appeal came to be fled that very day. Apparently it had been filed after more than a month and was accompanied by an application for the condonation of the delay.

6. Quite naturally there is a contest from the side of the respondents that the appeal is time barred. Mr. Itrat Puri, learned counsel for the respondents, maintained that neither any sufficient cause nor good faith, in the circumstances of the case stood made out, and in support of his contentions he referred to the case of Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar reported in PLD 1977 SC

102. It was, however, contended by Miss Sarwar Jahan, learned counsel for the appellant, that the decision in question would have no bearing as section 4 of the Limitation Act would be applicable in this case, and not section 5 thereof. Section 4 reads as under:‑ "

4. Where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day that the Court re‑opens." It is true that during the vacations the office remains open, to receive petitions and attend to routine miscellaneous work, but the Court does not work. Mitra's Commentary on the Law of Limitation as edited by M. Farani (April, 1989) on page 25, has the following to say, on the basis of a judgment reported in 1975 SCMR 452:‑ "From the plain reading of section 4 of the Limitation Act, it becomes abundantly clear that the period during which the Court remains closed on account of Vacations, has to be excluded for the computation of limitation and the notification cannot take precedence over the statutory provisions. Even otherwise, the notification merely gives the petitioners an option to file petitions. Such an option cannot be construed so as to take away a statutory right." Further, on page 26 the author has the following to say: "Where no civil judicial work, except of an urgent nature, is conducted during the vacation, section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply, with the result that when in any appeal or suit the period of limitation expires during 'the vacation, the matter would be within time if instituted on the first day of the reopening of the Court after the vacations."

7. The contention of Mr. Itrat Puri is therefore devoid of all merits and stands overruled.

8. Admittedly the first grievance notice would be within time. It was sent under registered cover and was returned as unaccepted by the staff of the mill as according to them the address was not proper. The other too was returned. It was only the third‑one which came to be accepted. The envelopes of the first two notices had been brought on the record and it carries, in bold letters, that the contents thereof were Grievance Notices. These are addressed to the General Manager, Hussain Spinning Mills, Landhi.

9. The appellant in his cross‑examination admitted that the name of the mill at the time of its opening was Hussain Spinning Mills but in 1986 it was divided into four parts. Let us see what Abdul Razzaq, Manager Administration, who appeared on behalf of the respondents has to say on the subject. According to him: "One Mr. Muhammad Yousuf and his Assistant receive the correspondence in Despatch Department which is in my name or in the name of Hussain Spinning Mill Unit No.1. The same persons also receive the correspondence in the name of Hussain Spinning Mill."

10. It is not disputed that these sections of the mill are situated within the same area and are part and parcel of the same structure. I asked Mr. Itrat Puri if Hussain Spinning Mill Unit No. I had its own Articles and Memorandum of Association and after a number of adjournments what he produced was not exclusively that way. The title page showed that the Hussain Spinning Mill had some parts including Unit No. 1.

11. The sending of the first notice is not denied. All that was said was that it came to be returned as it did not give the proper address. It is nothing more than a specious plea. The letter came to be returned because it showed that it was a `grievance notice'. The refusal of the letter was absolutely unwarranted. It concerned the mill though there might be separate parts thereof. All the correspondence addressed to the mill is admittedly received by the same set of persons. Under the law it would be presumed to have been duly served.

12. I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore stands set aside. The matter is remanded and the learned Presiding Officer will dispose of it expeditiously as enough time has been lost by his omission to adjudicate on the remaining issues. H.B.T./2071/Lb.S Case remanded.