' This appeal arises from the order dated 5th September, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby Mohammad Asghar, President of C. B. A., was allowed to continue as member of the Board for two years.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the statement of the counsel for the appellant, the learned lower Court allowed Mohammad Asghar to continue for two years, but the learned counsel had not given the period as two years. The statement made by Ch. Mohammad Siddiq, counsel for the appellant, was that according to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, whoever representative would be nominated by the respondent, it would be acceptable. This is true that Ch. Mohammad Siddiq, Advocate did not mention the period, but this is wrong that tenure of a member nominated by the C. B. A. Is six months only. According to section 23-B (4) of the Industial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the period A of tenure is two years. Since the period of tenure is two years, Mohammad Asghar was wrongly removed from the membership and the learned lower Court rightly allowed him to continue for two years.
3. The order passed by the learned lower Court is dated 5th September, 1979, whereas the appeal was presented on 22nd December, 1979. There is an application for condonation of delay also, in which the ground given is that Mohammad Siddiq Akhtar, Advocate, who had appeared for District Manager, G. T. S. Railway Road, Faisalabad, failed to inform the District Manager concerned about the impugned order, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. Ch. Mohammad Siddiq filed an affidavit to the effect that the attested copy of the impugned order was supplied to him on 2nd December, 1979 by the learned lower Court, therefore, he could not inform the District Manager earlier. Whenever a copy is supplied, the date of presentation of the application for copy, the date of the preparation and delivery of the copy are given on the copy, therefore, there is no need of filing any separate affidavit. No attested copy of the impugned decision has been filed alongwith the appeal. A photostat copy of the attested copy is on the file, but it does not serve the purpose.
The employee of the c lower Court should have been examined in support of the contention that the copy was supplied late. The ground given for condonation of delay, therefore, is not sufficient.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I dismiss the appeal ex parte on merits as well as being barred by time.