This is an appeal under section 16 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The appeal is directed primarily against the order dated 15th May 1968. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The appellant made an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, on 27th December 1967, before the West Pakistan Industrial Court (Northern Zone), Lahore. The Court fixed 15th May 1968, for disposal of the application. The appellant made an application on 13th May 1968, through his Representative for adjournment of the case. It is stated by the appellant that the application was not granted. The matter was, therefore, taken up on 15th May 1968, and as no one was present on behalf of the appellant the main application was dismissed for non- prosecution. The appellant made an application on 15th June 1968, for restoration of his application. It was dismissed mainly on the ground that the application is beyond the time limit prescribed by the Limitation Act. It was dismissed on 22nd October 1968.
3. The, appellant made an application for a copy of the order on 14th November 1968. According to the appellant the certified copy was despatched on 29th November 1968, to the appellant's Kotri's. address, This is stated in para.2 of his application. Again the appellant stated in para. 5 of his applica--tion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, that the appellant received the certified copy on 9th December 1968. In support of this he has filed an envelope. The appeal was filed in this Court on 13th December 1968. I admitted the appeal subject to any objection by the other side as to the limitation.
4. Mr. Ghulam Hasan, the learned Representative of the respondent contends that the explanation of condonation of delay is most inadequate and does not make out a case for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In this connection the learned Representative contended that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not supported by an affidavit. The so-called affidavit of 12th December 1968, is not a proper affidavit. The appellant did not swear as to the contents of the affidavit before any Oath Commissioner. The deponent, who is the appellant in the case before me, was identified by Mr. A. Majeed, Representative of the appellant but for some reason or the other could not be presented before any Oath Commissioner. Even if the facts as stated in the application under section 5 the Limitation Act are accepted, the delay has not been explained. The appellant admits that he received the certified copy on 9th December 1968, and he has not given any reason in the application as to why the application could not be filed earlier than 13th December 1968. Moreover the position is, as, would appear from the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, that the certified copy was ready on 28th November 1968, and was despatched to the appellant on 29th November 1968. If it was seat to the appellant at his Kotri's address on 29th November 1968, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why he did not file the appeal earlier. There is somewhat inconsistent statement in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In para. 2 of the application, as already mentioned, the appellant stated that the certified copy wag sent to his address on 29th November 1968. On the other hand he has stated in para. 5 of his application that the certified copy of the order was received by the Representative of the appellant on 9th December 1968. If the certified copy bad been sent to the address of the appellant on 29th November 1968, it is immaterial as to when the appellant's Representative received the certified copy of the order. The appellant had filed the envelope addressed to the Appellant's Representative in support of his allegation that his Representative received the certified copy on 9th December 1968. Mr. Ghulam Hasan has rightly contended that the envelope cannot support the statement of the appellant that his Representative received the certified copy on 9th December 1968. Mr. Ghulam Hasan stated in the first place that if the certified copy was sent by the Industrial Court in the envelope filed it would have been stamped by the State Postage Stamp. The envelope was sent without any postage stamp. In the second place he contend that the envelope bears two seals showing that the envelope was sent from Rahimyar Khan to Kotri. It is clear, the learned Representative contend, that the certified copy was not sent from Lahore but from (tahimyar Khan, which could not be. The Industrial Court, which passed the order, is atLahore. In these circumstances I do not find that the appellant had succeeded in explaining the delay for filing the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on the ground that it has been filed beyond the limitation period prescribed by section 16 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance.