1. ' This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Authority under the Payment, of Wages Act, 1936, Central Division, Karachi on 20-12-1982 whereby a claim of Rs.8,340 was allowed to the respondent.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the respondent/applicant filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for recovery of Rs.8,340 towards the delayed wages for the period 30- 7-1979 to 20-9-1980 from the Appellant/Opposite Party on 11-1-1981.
3. ' The Appellant/Opposite Party contested the matter and filed his Reply Statement on 12-3-1981 denying the claim of the respondent/ applicant and pointing out that the matter was time barred, also that the matter was not maintainable. Finally, as per diary of 9-10-1982 the issues were recast and settled as under:-
(1) Whether the provisions of Payment of Wages Act are applicable to the respondent- Establishment?
(2) Whether the application has been filed against proper party?
(3) Whether the applicant was in the employment of the Opposite Party at the relevant time?
(4) Whether the claim filed is time-barred?
(5) Whether the applicant is entitled to the claim he has preferred or to a part thereof?
(6) What should the order be?
4. ' The appellant/respondent did not contest the matter thereafter and chose to remain absent hence the word of the respondent/applicant remained unchallenged and the side of the appellant/respondent was closed. The matter was then disposed of on merits by the impugned order on 20-12-1982, hence this appeal.
5. ' I have heard the learned Representatives of the respective parties at length and also perused the material available on the record. I have also perused the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant.
6. ' The order impugned, admittedly was passed on 20-12-1982 and was sent to the Collector (South), Karachi for recovery on 8-2-1983. As admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant came to know of impunged order on 19-3-1983. That being so, the appellant was waiting till about 4-5-1983 when he applied for certified copy of the impugned order and filed the present appeal.
7. ' Assuming for the sake of arguments, the appellant came to know of the impugned order on 19-3- 1983, he should either have approached the Authority for review of the impugned order or should have filed this appeal on 19-4-1983 but this was not done and the appellant waited for a further period of almost 15 days and obtained copy.
8. This appeal, as already mentioned should have been filed within thirty days. The period of limitation even if computed from the date of knowledge i.e. 19-3-1983, the matter seems miserably time-barred. No sufficient cause has been assigned for condonation of delay hence this period cannot be condoned. With the result that this appeal being' miserably time-barred must fail.
9. ' I accordingly dismiss this appeal. The order of the Authority remains intact. All interlocutory orders are hereby recalled.