1988 PLP 367 (PLC)

S.Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1.987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 3‑12‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent workman covered by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It was claimed by the respondent that previously he was suspended and transferred, so he filed a grievance petition which was allowed on 31‑10‑1982 and due to this, the appellants were unhappy, therefore, they started harassing him in one way or the other and somehow thereafter he was put on duty vide letter, dated 23‑11‑1982. However, on 7-11‑1983 he could not attend the office because of the serious illness of his son and since that date till 31‑12‑1983. He was not permitted to resume his duties on certain grounds. However, when, on 3‑1‑1984, he served upon the appellants his grievance notice, he was issued a charge‑sheet, dated 28‑2‑1984 and after submission of his defence to the charge‑sheet in an enquiry he was issued a second show‑cause notice on 2‑9‑1984 which was replied by him on 13‑10‑1984 and thereafter by a letter, dated 18‑3‑1985 he was brought down to one step below for a period of one year. Being aggrieved with this, the respondent submitted his present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.8.0. 1969. 3. The appellants resisted the petition on the ground that the respondent was a temporary employee and was not‑ covered by the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 because the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1960 were applicable to the employment of the respondent. It was also claimed by the appellants that in violation of Rule 39 of Post Office Manual Volume II, the respondent had illegally absented himself from duty without any application or intimation. Further, it was the case of the appellants that in spite of several notices, when the respondent failed to report for duty, he was issued a charge‑sheet and a lawful as well as proper enquiry was conducted against him and after completing the necessary formalities, he was awarded the impugned punishment. Thus, he .was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned order granting his prayer, as had been mentioned in his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard.Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr.S.Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also perused carefully the record and proceedings of the case as well as the present memo of appeal. At the very outset, Mr.S.Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has pointed out that the impugned order was passed by the learned Labour Court on 3‑12‑1986, while the present appeal was filed by the appellants in this Tribunal on 5‑1‑1987. Clearly after expiry of mandatory period of 30 days without supporting of an affidavit for condonation of delay on cogent and convincing reasons, hence, the appeal be dismissed being time‑barred. On the other hand, Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad the learned Advocate for the appellants has no legs to stand to submit anything in rebuttal of the contentions of Mr.S. Fasahat' Hussain Rizvi. I have perused an application alongwith an affidavit sworn by one, Muhammad Abdul Saleem, requesting therein to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. There is an admission that the impugned order was passed on 3‑12‑1986 and a certified copy of it was supplied to the appellants on 4‑12‑1986. Simple mention that there were disturbances in Hyderabad as well as District West Karachi and also imposition of a curfew in these areas, has no substance to condone the delay. There was always a relaxation in the curfew and hence, day to day delay in filing the appeal was not reasonably and convincingly explained. In view of this position, I would hold the present appeal as time‑barred and not maintainable. 6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly. A.E. /1091/Lb.S???? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed‑