1988 PLP 605 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Railway employees claiming arrears of recreation allowance on running allowance as well‑‑Railway Authorities refusing to allow arrears‑‑Grievance petition resisted on plea of limitation with contention that it started from date of letter issued in 1974‑‑Condonation of delay prayed on ground that after decision of High Court, Administration had assured petitioner orally about payment of arrears and thus he waited for issuance of letter in accordance with judgment of High Court‑‑Statement of petitioner not rebutted‑‑Grievance notice served well in time after verbal refusal of arrears‑‑Delay in circumstances, rightly condoned by Labour Court Irfan Qadir for Appellants. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1986. The decision dated 24‑9‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the appellants were directed to pay recreation allowance to the respondents for the years 1981 and 1982 on 55$ running allowance as well.

2. The grievance petition of the respondents was time‑barred therefore, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was brought for the condonation of delay which was accepted by the learned Lower Court. The respondents were allowed recreation allowance for the period prior to 1981 upto 1980. Grievance notice was served on 11‑9‑1983. The plea taken in the application for condonation of delay was that the appellants had assured the respondents about the payment of arrears of the recreation allowance but refused on 12‑6‑1983. No written refusal was brought on the record. In a statement Mr. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi took up the stand that the petition was not within the prescribed period since the respondents waited the decision of the appellants and gave grievance notice after the Headquarters Office had issued letter, copy of which is Ex.P‑5, allowing recreation allowance on 55$ running allowance with immediate effect. This is noteworthy that in the letter of 1974 it was not made clear whether recreation allowance would be paid on 55$ running allowance as well. After the High Court had decided the matter, thereafter letter, copy of which is Ex.P‑5, was issued. It is, therefore, believable that after the decision by the High Court the respondents waited for the issuance of a letter by the appellant on the subject in accordance with the decision of the High Court. It is thus believable that the concerned authorities may have orally assured the respondents for the payment of the recreation allowance on 55$ running allowance. What Mr. Lodhi in his statement stated was not rebutted, inasmuch as no witness was examined by the appellants in rebuttal. From the date of letter Ex.P‑5, the grievance notice sent on 11‑9‑1983 was within time. The grievance arose to the respondents by letter, copy of which is Ex. P‑5, whereby the appellants decided to pay recreation allowance on 55$ running allowance with immediate effect and not from the date on which originally the orders were issued in 1974 with regard to the payment of recreation allowance. After the interpretation of the matter by the High Court. the appellant was bound to allow recreation allowance from the date on which provision was made and not from any subsequent date. Therefore, delay was rightly condoned by the learned lower Court.

3. On merits the decision of the learned lower Court has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants during arguments.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Nemo for the parties. A.E./348/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.