MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN, (MEMBER).-- The appellant, a Line Superintendent-I in the organization of respondent No. 1, has prayed for a direction to the said respondent to consider and promote him as Junior Engineer with effect from 20-3-1974
2. A preliminary objection regarding limitation has been seriously raised on behalf of the respondent-department. On the other hand, the appellant has submitted an application under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay wherein the only ground urged is that the delay in filing of the appeal has occurred due to his bona fide pursuing remedy before the different wrong forums inasmuch as he had filed petitions for his promotion before the learned Punjab Labour Court and the National Industrial Relations Commission and when ultimately vide its judgment, dated 1-10-1983 the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter, he approached this Tribunal immediately thereafter.
3. After having carefully considered the matter we are not satisfied that the appellant had been bona fide pursuing his remedy before the wrong forums. If at all, there was any doubt regarding the appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal in respect of the WAPDA employees it stood sufficiently clarified in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, dated 5-12-1982 in the case of F U. Malik v. WAPDA. The present appeal was, however, filed by the appellant on 23-11-1983 i.e. About ten months after the position regarding jurisdiction was well---known. There is thus no proper explanation of the inordinate delay occurred in filing the present appeal which is inexcusable and un-condonable. In these circumstances we do not find any valid ground for condonation of delay and accordingly reject the application of the appellant in this respect.
4. Apart from the above it is categorically averred by the respondent-department that the appellant was considered in. 1974 but was not found fit for promotion as he did not qualify the prescribed departmental examination. According to proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, no appeal lies to this Tribunal against a decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise or a person to be promoted to a higher post. In view of this provision also the appeal is not maintainable.
5. For the foregoing reasons the appeal being hopelessly time-barred and not maintainable, is dismissed as incompetent.
A. E.