The appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 4-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby Javaid Saleem (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. Messrs National Construction Company (hereinafter to be called as the appellant) have challenged the direction of re-'instatement; whereas the respondent-has claimed in his appeal back benefits. As both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2, The grievance petition of the respondent was accepted ex parte on 24-3-1979. The appellant re- instated the respondent in c9npliance with the said order or-the court, but terminated him by way of retrenchment on 24-4-1979 vide order Exh. P-7. The said termination was not challenged. The ex parte order of re-instatement was set aside in appeal on 3-6-1980 and the case was remanded and, thereafter, the impugned order of rein--statement without back benefits was passed.
3.The grievance petition is time-barred and no application for condonation of delay was given. It was not expressly said in the written .Statement that the petition was time-barred, but it was said that it was made after one year. The grievance notice also may be time-barred, but since the respondent did not put any date under his signatures affixed in token of the receipt of the order of dismissal and the appellant failed to prove 'on which date the order was delivered to the respondent, it is not established that the notice was time-barred. Grievance notice was delivered to the appellant on 18-7-1978 as is evident from A/D receipt Exh. P-15. The grievance petition was presented on 19-10-1978. The period of 2-- months expired on 3-10-1978, so the petition was time- barred by sixteen days for which there is no explanation. Needless to say that each day' delay is to be explained satisfactorily. As from the material present on the record which has been discussed above, the petition is obviously time barred and the question of fact is involved, the question of limitation stands reduced to a legal point only and it can be taken notice of when I has been vehemently stressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. When a legal defect such as of limitation comes to the notice of the court, the court cannot shut its eyes. I, therefore, hold that the grievance petition is time-barred. The provisions of section 25-A in their nature are mandatory and their strict compliance was necessary.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal of the appellant and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, dismiss the grievance petition as time- barred. Since the very order of re-instatement has been set aside, the appeal with regard to back benefits cannot be accepted. However, since the order of exparte decision remained effective, the respondent is entitled to back benefits from the date of dismissal i. e. 25-10-1977 up to 24-3-1979 when he was directed to be re-instated. The respondent may apply for the recovery of that amount to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.