' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- The captioned appeals are directed against the judgments dated 30-6-2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab' Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petitions filed by the respondents were allowed and they were reinstated in service, with stoppage of three increments with all back-benefits. Since both the appeals involve common questions of law and facts as such they are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The facts of the cases briefly are that the respondents were employees of the appellant department and were serving as Cash Overseeer; Tariq Mahmood was posted at Post Office, Kahota whereas Akhmad Hussain was working at Post Office Kallar Sayedan, Rawalpindi. On 19-9- 2009 an amount of Rs,12,00,000 (Rs, Twelve lacs only) was entrusted to the respondents for delivery to the two post offices Rs,5,00,000 (Rs,five lacs only) were handed over to Mr. Tariq Mehmood respondent for delivery at Balakhar and Rs,7,00,000 (Rs,seven lacs only) were given to other respondent for delivery at Dober Kallan. The said amount allegedly was looted by dacoits, at 3-00 p.m. On the said date and F.I.R. No,312 was lodged in this respect at Police Station Kalar Sayedan.
3. There were allegedly acquitted of the charges by the criminal court under section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. As the appellant department failed to pursue the cases properly. As for the grievance petitions the Labour Court allowed the same and they were ordered to be reinstated with some minor penalties.
4. The office has pointed out at the very outset that the appeals are time-barred by 1 month and 28 days each. The appellants have filed applications for condonation of delay in both the cases on identical grounds.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the copies of the impugned judgments were obtained by them on 23-7-2011. The delay infact occurred due to procuring sanction for filing the appeals from the Federal Government and nomination of a counsel. Both the counsel argued the point vigorously. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay had in fact mainly occurred due to the delayed receipt of nomination of the counsel from the Federal Government. It was added that it appears that some officials of the department were in league with the respondents who caused huge loss to the department. On the last date of hearing at Lahore i,e, 31-10-2011 Mr. Zargham Abbas, Divisional Superintendent, a senior officer of the department had appeared and it was made clear to him that since no counsel has so far been engaged the case will be heard at Rawalpindi on 25-11-2011. It was also pointed out to him that if the officials of the department had conspired with the respondents and had caused huge loss to the department the proceedings so far taken against those abetters should be brought on the record but nothing was done. The nomination of the counsel was ordered on 26-8-2011 but the department filed the appeals on 29-9-2011. Thus the department has miserably failed to explain satisfactorily the delay caused after obtainment of the copies of the judgment and nomination of their counsel upto 29-9-2011 the date when the appeals were filed. It is now well-settled that no preference can be given to the Government departments in condonation of delay as compared to the other establishments.
6. There is a delay of 1 month and 28 days for which no plausible explanation at all has been rendered. It was ruled by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (1989 SCM R 864 and 2006 SCM R 783) that it was the primary duty of the court to first determine the point of limitation and then to proceed on merits. It is now well-settled law that nobody can be allowed to circumvent the provisions of Statute of Limitation. Party approaching the court of competent jurisdiction for relief beyond the specified period of limitation was bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the respective forum because valuable rights had accrued to the other side. As such no case has been made out for condonation of delay.
7. In this view of the matter, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed as grossly time-barred.