Saleem Jan, Member .--The appellant Mohammad Iqbal has filed the present appeal under Section 54(3) of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 against the order/judgment dated 30-05-2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV, at Karachi whereby his petition filed under Section 25-A of IRO, 1969 was dismissed. Later on according to order of Larger Bench of this Commission dated this appeal was transferred to this Bench of Commission.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was workin g as permanent worker in the establishment of respondents since 08-12-1986. The respondents were not issuing appointment letter , identity card, Hygiene Card, leave record book, ticket or ticket number to the workers under labour laws, therefore, the appellant and other persons filed petition before the labour Court, which was dismissed being time-barred. It is averted by the appellant, a case of unfair labour practice was also filed before the NIRC, which was also dismissed.
It was alleged by the appellant that the respondents were running the factory by way of Group System and the persons. in group of respondents were given benefits but the petitioner and other workers who did not belong to group of M. Farooq, Notified Factory Manager , were deprived of their benefits though they were permanent workmen and the even the weekly holiday of Saturday and Sunday was not allowed to them, therefore, they formed a trade union on 20-09-1999 and applied for its registration. However during pendency of registration they obtained stay order from NIRC, which was subsequently vacated and then on 26-01-1998 when the appellant went to resume his duty after completing Mujahid Training he was stopped from entering in the premises by Mr.Hanif Security Officer. The petitioner submitted grievance notice, which was not replied by the respondents for want of relationship of employee and employer , therefore, the petitioner filed grievance petition. The respondents opposed the grievance petition by filing their written statement wherein they challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that no relationship of employee and employer was existing between the parties. Evidence of both the parties was recorded and after hearing both the parties, the petition was dismissed vide order dated 30-05-2009, which is impugned in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary legal objection that the appeal filed by appellant is hopelessly time-barred because the impugned order was announced on 30-05-2009. The appellant applied for copy on 30-05-2009, copy was ready on 09-06-2009 and the copy of delivered to him on 10-06-2009 while the appeal was filed by the appellant before the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLA T) on 07-11-2009 under Section 54(3) of the IRA, 2008 and the appeal is hopelessly time- barred. Learned counsel for the respon dents further contended in his argume nts that the appellant has not explained the reasons for delay either in his petition or in application for condonation of delay so also in supporting affidavit, so in these circumstances the appeal is not maintainable and be dismissed being hopelessly time-barred.
4. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended in his arguments that the appeal is within time. He has mentioned all the plausible explanation in supporting affidavit, so this contention of learned counsel for the respondents be rejected and the appeal be decided on its own merits.
5. We have given our anxious thought the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
6. The crucial point involved in the present appeal is "limitation". The perusal of impugned judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IV , at Karachi reveals that impugned order was passed on 30-05- 2009, copy was applied on 30-05-2009, which was read on 09-06-2009 and the was delivered to the appellant on 10-06-2009 while the appeal was filed on 07-11-2009 before the learned SLAT, so in these circu mstances we are of the opinion that appeal of the appellant is time-barred as he had to approach the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLA T) within 30 days. Moreover , the appellant has not explained the reasons for delay either in his petition or in application for condonation of delay so also in supporting affidavit, so in these .circumstances the appeal is not maintainable and be dismissed being hopelessly ,time barred, therefore, there is no need to discuss other facts of the case because it would futile exercise. On this legal point reliance is placed on case titled Wali Mohammad Khokhar versus Government of Sindh and others (2001 SCMR 912 ).
As result of above discussion, we hold that appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time-barred and the same is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is maintained. File be consigned to record.