' MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).- Muhammad Aslam ex-Dispenser Hydel Power Station, Shadiwal, District Gujrat, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Province of Punjab through Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, and the Director of Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore, as respondents. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith the appeal was also filed, wherein prayer has been made that delay in filing the appeal be condoned and appeal be decided on merits. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders dated 18- 1-1969, 6-6-1969, 18-6-1969 and 26-12-1969 passed by the respondents be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was Operation Theatre Assistant in Aziz Bhatti Shahced Hospital, Gujrat. I le was dismissed from service on 18-1-1969. On appeal he was reinstated but finally the said order dated 18-1-1969 was found to be effective and justified. Ultimately the appellant filed Writ Petition No, 1298 of 1970, which was admitted by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
After promulgation of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the Division Bench of Lahore High Court disposed of the same on 15-7-1974, as the jurisdiction in the matter was given to the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant came to know the fate of this writ petition on 31-12-1986. The appellant has filed the instant appeal on 4-3-1989.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage of preliminary hearing on the question of limitation at length. The main contention of the appellant is that the appeal filed by the appellant is well in time and that the delay in filing the appeal occurred on account of the circumstances beyond his control.
4. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the opinion that the appellant has miserably failed to file the present appeal within the prescribed time limit. It was the legal duty of the appellant to explain the delay of each day but we find that the appellant has failed to explain the same. In our assessment the instant appeal has been filed after expiry of about 15/16 years from the date of passing the order by the Lahore High Court in the writ petition and after 3/4 years when the appellant came to Pakistan from abroad i,e, 31-12-1986. It is a fact on record that although the appellant has filed application for condo nation of delay but no cogent reason has been given to explain the same. On careful perusal of the facts of this appeal we are of the opinion that the same is badly time-barred.
5. In the above circumstances, regardless of the merits of the case, we hold that the appeal is grossly time-barred and dismiss the same in liming being hit by laches.