' The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 10-1-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of respondent No, 1 has been accepted and he has been declared as senior to respondent No,
2. A direction has also been issued for considering respondent No, 1 for promotion as Electrician grade II and that if he is promoted, he should be placed in his proper position in order of merits above respondent No, 2.
2. An objection has been raised on behalf of respondent No, 1 that the appeal is time-barred, inasmuch as the application for copy of the impugned order was made on 14-2-1988 after the expiry of the period for bringing the appeal. The case of the appellant is that application for copy was given on 14-1-1988 as is mentioned in the seal affixed on the copy of the order Respondent No, 1 examined three witnesses namely Muhammad Irshad, Copy Clerk of Court No, 6 (RW-1), Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Siddiqui, Railways Standing Counsel (RW-2) and Muhammad Hussain Mukhtar, Reader of Court No, 6 (RW-3). R.W. 1 had brought the register meant for entering the applications for copies and deposed that the Railway had applied for copy of the judgment dated 10-1-1988 on 14-2-1988. He also deposed that the original application for copy given on behalf of Railways had been brought by him and it was bearing the date as 14-2-1988 and he had entered the said application in the register on 15-2-1988 at serial No,
65. He lastly stated that the learned Presiding Officer had allowed issuance of the copy on 15-2-1988. In cross-examination he said that the application for copy was delivered to the Reader at Attock when the Court was on tour and that on return from tour the Reader had delivered to him on 15-2-1988. He, however, admitted that all the entries in the seal affixed on the copy of the order were made by him and that in the seal the date of the application is given as 14-1-1988. In answer to a Court question he said that Court No, 6 was not on tour to Attock on 14-1-1988 and that in January, 1988 the Court had remained on tour to Attock only on 10th. RW-2 who is the Standing Counsel of the Railways deposed that he had given application for copy Exh. A-2 on 14-2-1988 at Attock where the Labour Court had gone on tour on that date. He volunteered that the case had been decided on 10-1-1988 but he could not move application for copy on that date and applied for copy on 14-1-1988 at Rawalpindi. He further deposed that when he had demanded a copy on 14-2-1988 the Reader had said that he had not received any application for copy, whereupon he (the witness) made application Exh. A-2 on 14-2- 1988. Muhammad Hussain Mukhtar (RW-3) Reader deposed that the case of Muhammad Siddiq, respondent No, 1, was decided on 10-1-1988 at Attock, that the tour of February had taken place on 14-2-1988 at Attock. He further stated that between 10-1-1988 and 14-2-1988 no application for copy of the judgment delivered in this case was given and that on 14-2-1988 he had received the application at Attock in the presence of the Presiding Officer from Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Siddiqui, Advocate. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that RW-2 had presented the application for copy at Rawalpindi on 14-1-1988. No evidence was produced by the appellant in rebuttal. The register of applications for copies is a very important document, inasmuch as all applications for copies are entered in the said register. The applications are entered in the register on the date on which they are given. The application was entered on 15-2-1988 at Rawalpindi, it is clear that the application had been given on 14-2-1988 when the Court was on tour at Attock and not on 14-1-1988. RW-1 firstly stated that the date of 14-1-1988 given in the seal affixed on the copy was not given by him but the other entries were made by him, but on further cross-examination he took a somersault and said that he did not leave any column meant for giving the date of moving the application for copy as vacant. He also submitted that all the entries given in the seal were in his handwriting. He, however, said that no application carrying the date as 14-1-1988 was delivered to him. The Reader (RW-3) said that the application for copy was received by him on 14-2-1988. It is thus clear that the application for copy was given on 14-2-1988 at Attock and RW-1 the Ahalmad in order to help the appellant gave the date of presentation of the application for copy in the seal as 14-1-1988. If application for copy had been given on 14-1-1988, it would have been entered in the register on the said date and not on 14-2-1988. RW-2 on account of being Standing Counsel of the Railway wrongly stated that on 14-1-1988, he had made application for copy at Rawalpindi. The appeal, therefore, is time-barred since the very application for copy was given after the I expiry of the period on 14-2-1988.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.