1. ' ASAD MUNIR ;MEMBER).--- Being posted as a Cashier at the Appellant Bank's, Baghbinpura Branch, Lahore, late Mushtaq Ahmed was dismissed from service on 17-4-1984 pursuant to a charge-sheet dated 27-9-1981 wherein it was alleged that while on privilege' leave, he had proceeded to India without. Obtaining Ex-Pakistan leave and had committed other acts of misconduct including parallel banking, unauthorized issue of receipts to depositors and failure to credit the funds received from account holders to their accounts. Finding that neither the charge-sheet nor the dismissal order was issued by the competent person, the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, vide its judgment dated 3-4-1985 reinstated late Mushtaq Ahmed into service with full back benefits.
2. 2.This appeal filed on 18-12-1996 calls into question the legality of the Labour Court judgment dated 3-4-1985 but a preliminary issue has arisen as to whether this appeal is hit by the bar of limitation.
3. As required by section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, no appeal was filed by the Appellant Bank against the impugned judgment within 30 days. Instead, the impugned judgment was challenged through Writ Petition No,2683/85 on the ground that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction in respect of the service matters of the bank employees. The writ petition, filed on 17-6- 1985; remained pending before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, till 6-11-1996 wile,' ;t was disposed of in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in PLD 1988 Supreme Court 53 with the observation that the Appellant Bank would be entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 11))8. 01 18-12-1996, the present appeal was filed along with an applicatit uncle: section 5 of the Limitation Act, 908, for condonation of deify 07 the ground of the pendency of the writ petition before the Hon'ble La'i re Higa Court. The appeal was originally filed before this Tribunal 511. Was dismissed in default on 11-3-1997 whereafter it was restored. Th.' appeal was again dismissed, for non- prosecution on 15-2-1999 and restored later. After the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, this Tribunal was abolished and the appeal stood transferred to the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, where it was dismissed for non-prosecution for the third time on 24-3- 2004 and was again restored vide order dated 25-5-2005 subject to payment of costs of Rs,5,000 which according to the respondent have not been paid. During the pendency of the appeal, Mushtaq Ahmed passed away on 31-10-2010 whereafter this Tribunal vide its order dated 29-2-2012 allowed the impleadment of the late Mushtaq Ahmed's widow and three sons as respondents.
4. Despite this Tribunal's orders dated 2922-2012 and 4-10-2012, the amended memo. Of parties has not been filed by the appellant-Bank. In the circumstances, the legal heirs of late Mushtaq Ahmed are deemed to be on record as respondents.
3. This appeal has been filed 11 years, 8 months and 15 days after the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Labour Court on 3-4-1985. In view of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court; Lahore's order dated 6-11-1995, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and as a result, the period between 17-6-1985 till 6-11-1996 stands excluded. However, after exclusion of the period of pendency of the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, a period of 3 months and 22 days remains which means that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 2 months and 22 days for which there is no explanation. In its application for condonation of delay, the appellant-Bank has given no explanation to account for the period between 3-4-1985 and 17-6- 1985 nor is there any explanation as to why the appeal was filed on 18-12-1996 more than 42 days after the writ petition was disposed of. An effort has been made to explain the delay after the disposal of the writ petition by stating that the certified copy of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore's order dated 6-11-1996 was applied for on 12-11-1996 and obtained on 14-12-1996. I am afraid that section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, would exclude only such period during which the matter remained pending before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and would not extend to cover the period spent in applying for the certified copy of the order. In this view of the matter, there is no plausible explanation for the delay of about 2 months and 22 days, considering that the matter had remained pending before the wrong forum for more than 11 years, the appellant-Bank should have been more vigilant and should have filed the appeal without further loss of time. It is settled law that valuable rights accrue to a party if the other party fails to approach the competent court within the prescribed period unless each and every day's delay is explained which otherwise cannot be condoned.
5. 4.For what is stated above, this appeal is time-barred and no sufficient reason is available to condone the delay of 2 months and 22 days in filing it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.