1. ' The services of the appellant, S. Shakil Abbas Rizvi, were terminated by the respondents by an order, dated 15th October, 1981. The appellant thereupon served a grievance notice on the respondents vide on 25th October, 1981. The grievance notice was replied by the respondents vide their letter, dated 1st November, 1981. It is claimed by the appellant that this reply was received by him on 5th November, 1981. Even on the basis of the above statement of the appellant, the grievance petition should have been filed by him by the 5th of January, 1982. However it is filed on 13th January, 1982, 8 days beyond the period of limitation. The delay in the filing of the grievance petition was sought to be explained on 2 grounds firstly, that the appellant had received legal advice that grievance petitions could be filed within 21 months of receipt of reply to the grievance notice, and secondly, that the appellant's Advocate was busy studying for an interview to be held by the Sind Public Service Commission for recruitment of Civil Judges and that this interview actually took place on 10th and 11th of January, 1982. The learned Labour Court was not impressed with the explanation for delay submitted on behalf of the appellant and accordingly has dismissed his grievance petition as being barred by limitation. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up to this Tribunal in appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Malik, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Iqbal Afridi, Advocate for the respondents.
2. An affidavit has been filed by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Malik Advocate, in which it has been admitted that the appellant contacted him for filing of the appeal on 7th January, 1982. By that time, limitation for filing of the grievance petition had already expired. As such, unless the delay which had previously occurred can be satisfactorily accounted for by the appellant, the explanation submitted by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Malik for the subsequent delay cannot be taken into consideration and would be of no assistance to the appellant. As already indicated, the contention of the appellant is that the delay in the filing of the grievance petition primarily occurred because he has been given wrong advice that the period for filing of grievance petition was 2 months and 15 days from the date of receipt of reply to the grievance notice. Neither the affidavit of the Advocate who is said to have tendered such advice to the appellant has been filed nor even the name of that Advocate has been disclosed either in the affidavit of the appellant or of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Malik. There is thus nothing in support of the bare word of the appellant that he was given wrong advice by an advocate as to the period within which the grievance petition can be filed. Moreover, the settled rule is that "mistaken advice given by legal practitioner may in the circumstances of a particular case give rise to sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act although such mistake must be made bona fide and not as a result of gross negligence, "as observed by a Division Bench the Karachi High Court in the case of Evacuee District Trust Committee v. Muhammad Ismail & 2 others (1). A somewhat similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Nazar Muhammad & another v. Mst. Shadzada Begum & another (2).
3. The essential require ments for the application of this rule are first that the advice should be result of a bona fide mistake and second that it must not be due to grog negligence. A mistake would be bona fide if there was controversy on point or the law thereon was unsettled. In the instant case, the la clearly lays down that the grievance petition must be filed within 2 months of the receipt of the reply to the grievance notice. There is thus no room for any mistake much less a bona fide One on this point. The advice if at all tendered was patently, wrong advice and not a mistaken advice.
4. The for the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same rule of mistaken advice thus would not be applicable in the instant case. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 Kar. 252 (2) PLD 1974 SC 22 {{FOOT NOTE}}