' This appeal arises from the decision dated 31st January, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the order of dismissal recorded against the respondent was set aside.
2. The respondent was a Store Keeper appointed on 1st October, 1973. He was served with a charge- sheet on 19th February, 1975 for misconduct alleged to have been committed in April, 1974. The allegation was that the Government had stopped the sale of fertilizer and, thereafter, the prices increased and the respondent sold the fertilizer at the new rates, but showing the sale as anti- dated to the time when the prices were low ; entered the low prices in the record and deposited the amount accordingly, misappropriating and embezzling the difference of the two prices. His reply to the charge-sheet was considered as unsatisfactory and an enquiry was Held against him, which resulted in his dismissal. The said order was challenged by the respondent in his grievance petition.
The operation of the order of his dismissal was suspended with the result that the respondent continued in service till the final disposal of his grievance petition and even continues uptil now since his grievance petition was accepted.
3. The appeal fails on the short ground that it is barred by time. No certified copy of the impugned decision is on the file. Uncertified copy is attached to the appeal. The date of the impugned decision is 31st January, 1978. The appeal was presented on 29th April, 1978. As no certified copy is with the appeal, it does not appear as to when the appellant made application for copy and when the copy was delivered. Copy of the application is always attached to the main file of the lower Court, but no application of the appellant for copy of the impugned decision is on the file, meaning that it did not apply for the copy, nor took any certified copy. An application under section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was produced for condonation of delay. The ground given in the said application is that the learned lower Court adjourned the petition for orders on various dates and passed the order on 31st January, 1978 accepting the grievance petition of the respondent, that in the course of arguments on 26th April, 1978 in a different petition No, 1192/76 titled as 'Muhammad Hayat v. P. A. D. & S. C.' in Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, the counsel for the appellant came to know that the grievance petition from the decision of which the present appeal arises was decided on 31st January, 1978 and that the learned counsel communicated the fact to the appellant, whereupon the appellant obtained copy of the order dated 31st January, 1978 on 27th April, 1978. Therefore, the delay was not intentional. This is factually wrong that the learned trial Court adjourned the ease on various dates for orders. Only once the case was adjourned for orders. The arguments were heard on 5th January, 1978 and the case was. Fixed for orders on 19th January, 1978. On the said date the judgment was not ready, therefore, the case was adjourned for orders on 31st January, 1978 when the order was announced. The date of 19th January, 1978 for orders was fixed in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant by the lower Court after hearing arguments. On the said date nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, it was the duty of the appellant or his counsel to find out if the orders had been announced on 19th January, 1978 or the case adjourned. If they did not care, the Court is not to be blamed. No ground is given in the application for condonation of delay why on 19th January, 1978 learned counsel for the appellant did not appear in the lower Court and why he did not make enquiry about the date to which the case was adjourned for orders. On 31st January, 1978 also when the order was announced, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, again it was the duty of the appellant or his counsel to find out what orders had been passed. No ground is given why on 31st January, 1978 nobody appeared. No sufficient ground has been shown for the condonation of delay. A valuable right has accrued to the respondent by the lapse of time, which cannot be denied when no sufficient ground has been shown for non-appearance on 19th January, 1978 and 31st January, 1978 before the lower Court.
4. Since the appeal is time barred, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case. The appeal is dismissed as barred by time.