1978 PLP 232 (PLC)

Hassan Mehdi for Appellant. A. R. Arshad for Respondent. Mr. Ghulam Salam Hassan the respondent was employed as Clerk, by First National City Bank, Alflah Building. The Mall. Lahore viz, the appellant. He was dismissed from service on 1st March 1974 as he had allegedly commuted fraud of Rs. 21.O0 by various forgeries in respect of an account of an illiterate lady and her daughter. He is also alleged to have confessed his guilt. The case in this behalf was registered by the appellant with the police.

2. On 18th December 1974 the respondent filed an application uncle: section 2.5‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore seeking his re‑instatement. He contended that do proper charge‑sheet was served on him and that the copies of the evidence recorded against him were also not made available to him and in this manner he was not afforded with an opportunity to defend himself.

3. The appellant filed the written statement before the learned lower Court on 18th January 1975 and pleaded inter slid that the respondent's petition was badly barred by time as he was dismissed on 1st March 1974 where as he filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on 18th December 1974, although the period of limitation for the purpose was only two months.

4. In view of the aforesaid objection raised by the appellant about limitation, the respondent on 19th March 1975 filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. In his applica tion he maintained that the matter would be decided according to the lay out did not so happen and therefore the delay was caused in filing the petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The learned Junior Labour Court No. 2; Lahore heard the parties on the point of limitation and by its order dated 13th April 1975 concluded that in view of the ends of justice the delay was condoned. The parties were thus directed to produce their evidence on merits on 5th May 1975.

5. The aforesaid order dated the 10th April 1975 of the learned lower Court has been impugned through the present appeal.

6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent knew about his dismissal when it was ordered on 1st March 1974. There is no mention in the original application filed by the respondent under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance that he had been agitating his cause before the Bank Authorities. The respondent even did not care to file the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act along with his application under section 25‑A of the Industrial. Relations Ordinance. He filed the application, for condonation of delay after objection regarding limitation was taken up by the appellant in the written statement. The plea that he had been agitating the cause before the Bank Authorities appears to be afterthought. This is a settled proposition of law that after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, the delay of each day is to be satisfactorily explained. No such explanation is forthcoming in the present case. In all Ali Ahmad Molla v. M. M. Ispahani Ltd., Chitagong (1971 P L C 586) it was held by the East Pakistan. Labour Court that the worker war aware of his dismissal and there was no suggestion of fraudulent supersession of dismissal order, his application for re‑instatement filed after the expiry of period o` limitation deserved to be dismissed as being time barred. In the circumstances of the instant case also there is no justification whatsoever for condoning the delay and otherwise finding recorded by the learned lower Court, to say the least about it, is erroneous.

7. In view of what has been said above, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application filed by the respondent before the learned lower Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance as the sane is barred by time.