' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 3rd August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed on the sole ground that it was time- barred.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was removed from service was that he had committed theft of election papers of the union. The grievance petition was initially lodged in Punjab Labour Court No, I, Lahore, on 10th August, 1980. The said Court passed an order on 8th November, 1980 returning the petition for want of jurisdiction. The petition was actually returned from Court No, 1 on 12th November, 1980 and was presented to Court No, 2 on 16th November, 1980. No application for condonation of delay was given. With the appeal an affidavit is attached which is to the effect that power of attorney of the counsel was received from jail where the appellant was confined on 16th November, 1980. It has been argued that as the appellant was in jail and the learned counsel by mistake thought that fresh power of attorney was needed, the petition was presented in Court No, 2 late. Reliance has been placed upon 1978 PLC 319. The authority is distinguishable as in the said case the petition under section 25-A was not returned but was transferred by the appellate Tribunal and no question of limitation arises in transferred case. On the other hand the respondent has relied upon PLD 1982 Lah.
632. It has been held that application filed with delay on account of mistaken advice of the lawyer, where the affidavit of the said lawyer had not been filed, is no ground for condonation of delay. The appellant did not go to the lower Court with clean hands. The date of attestation of power of attorney by the jail authorities is tampered with. The attestation was made on 10th November, 1980 and digit 'zero' was changed into 'six' with different ink. The petition may have been presented on 12th November, 1980 in Court No, 29 bath the Courts were situated in the same city i,e, Lahore or on the following day, the petition was returned on 12th in late hours. No tangible explanation was given, nor any application for condonation of delay was given. Section 65.B of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has not included section 14 of the Limitation Act, so by virtue of section 5 of the Limitation Act, good grounds of delay are to be considered. In circumstances the party should be very vigilant. The appellant failed to exercise the due vigilance in bringing the petition' firstly in the wrong Court and 'then presenting it to the right Court with unexplained delay and without making a request for condonation of delay. A valuable right has accrued to the respondent by lapse of time which cannot be defeated without any cogent reasons. Since the power-of-attorney was attested by the jail authorities on 10th November, 1980 this ground that the power-of-attorney was attested late was not existing. The learned lower Court under these circumstances was justified in dismissing the petition as time-barred.
3. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.