M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).----In this appeal filed on 14-12-1974 the respondent raised the preliminary objection that the appeal having been filed after abatement of the Writ Petition No. 842-S;70 by the Lahore High Court on 15-7-1974, is barred by time. According to the respondent the appellant was required to file this appeal within 90 days of the abatement of the appeal which was automatic after the establishment of this Tribunal on 22-7-1974 and as such the appeal at the latest should have been filed on 19th October 1974. Reliance in this behalf was plated on the Supreme Court authority reported as PLD 1976 SC 195.
2. The appellant on the other hand placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal reported as Sardar Muhammad v. S. E. Headquarters, Lyallpur (1978 NLR 157) wherein it is laid down that even in the case of abatement, if the appellant could bring his case within the letter of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, longer period of limitation could be given, i.e. Six months from the es-- tablishment of this Tribunal was available. Thus according to the appellant he was entitled to file this appeal last by 25th January 1975. Hethus contended that the decision of the Supreme Court was clearly distinguishable. In the alternate he has asked for condonation of delay on the ground that he spent lot of time in collecting the documents and also in getting certified copy of the order of abatement passed by the High Court which took about 45 days.
3. After hearing the parties we are clearly of the view that the aforesaid Supreme Court decision is applicable to the facts of This case according to which this appeal is clearly beyond time. As regards the plea for the condo--nation of delay, copy of the High Court order was available on 30th August 1974. Even after allowing the time for obtaining the copy the appellant was required to move this Tribunal by 29th November 1974 at the latest. This appeal as filed on 14th December 1974 is barred by time by 16 days. The only explanation offered by the appellant is that he has been collecting documents. Appellant has not pointed out any document produced before us that the same was not available with him during writ proceedings. In the absence of any sound explanation for the period in question, we hold that the appeal is barred by time and is accordingly dismissed.