1983 PLP 866 (PLC(CS))

The appeal arises from the decision dated 9‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No! 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and his seniority was directed to be fixed from 1961.

2. The respondent was appointed as Ticket Collector Grade‑I on ad hoc basis on 16‑4‑1960. He had to be selected by the Selection Board and qualify T‑7 (b) course from Walton Training School.‑ He was selected and sent to the said school in 1962 but was discharged from there and thus was not regularised. However, in 1964 he was again sent to Walton Training School after being reselected and he qualified T‑7 (b) course. His seniority was, therefore, fixed from 1964. The claim of the respondent was that his seniority be fixed, from ‑1961.. According to him, he was discharged in 1962 from Walton Training School for the reason that messing charges were not paid, whereas the case of the appellant is that the respondent became overage, therefore, was discharged from the school. Exh. P‑6 supports the respondent. Not only he but fourteen other candidates also were discharged for non‑payment of messing charges. According to the respondent, the messing charges were paid by the appellant, so he was not responsible for the discharge and thus is entitled to get seniority fixed from 1961. The respondent stated in examination- in‑chief before the learned lower Court that in 1961 on account of non-deposit of messing charges, he was expelled and in 1962 he was dischar ged as he had become overage. He did not say that mess charges were to be paid by the appellant. However; he said that he had offered that the charges may be deducted from his pay or time be given for cash deposit but the principal did not agree to it. So the appellant was in the least responsible for the discharge of the respondent from Walton Training School. Since he actually qualified in 1964 after his age relaxation, his seniority was rightly fixed from the said year. The learned lower Court wrongly directed the fixation of his seniority from 1961.

3. But the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. ‑ The learned, lower Court decided the case on 2‑9=1981. Application for copy was given on 7‑10‑1981 six days alter the expiry of the period of limitation for filing appeal. Copy was delivered on the same day i.e. 7‑10‑1981 but the appeal was lodged on 31=10‑1981. No cogent ground is given to the application for condonation of delay Rather aspersion has been laid upon the Labour‑‑Court that 5-8-1981 was the date for orders. The plea stands falsified by the order sheet of the learned lower Court. It is also mentioned that after 5‑8‑1981 an employer of the appellant had been going to the lower Court for copy but was informed that the file was with the Presiding Officer. Application for copy was given on 7‑10‑1981, so how before that without application for copy the official could ask for the supply of the copy of orders. So this contention is also incorrect. It has been argued that many persons will be adversely affected by the wrong order of the lower Court, so delay may be on this ground condoned. The other employees not being party to this litigation will not be bound by the order, so the ground that they may be adversely affected 4s not a good ground for condonation. Each day's delay is to be satisfactorily explained for condonation of delay. But as remarked abov6,, no case of condonation of delay has been made out.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred. Appeal dismissed