DECISION This is an appeal under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). Section 11 of the Ordinance runs as under :-- "Any Trade Union aggrieved by a decision given under section 10 may appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which may uphold or reject the decision." Section 11 on the face it does not prescribe any time limit for filing an appeal.
The settled law is that if there is no time limit prescribed, it must be done within a reasonable time.
In this case impugned order was made on 20th of November 1973 while the appeal has been filed on the 2nd of February 1974. I asked the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant to explain this long delay in filing the appeal. He has made an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It may be mentioned technically that section 5 will not apply as section 11 does not prescribe any time limit. The ground mentioned in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by the affidavit of General Secretary saying that he was in Jail custody till 7th of December 1973. He only after 7-12-1973 came to know that an order has been passed by the Labour Court on the 20th of November 1973 about cancellation of the registration of the Uuion. Mr. Siddiqul admitted on behalf of his client that it was near about 8th of December 1973, that his client came to know about the existence of the impugned order. He however stated, though did not mention in his affidavit, that the General Secretary came to know about the cancellation of the registration on the 19th of January 1973, and then he made an application for copy of the impugned order on the 22nd of January 1973. This is so. But the fact remains that the General Secretary having come to know in the second week of December 1973, why did he take so long to wait for copy of the order.
2. I will now proceed to examine the scheme of the Ordinance about the time within which an appeal should be filed. Under section 37 (3) an appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the Award. Under section 36-D an appeal has to be filed to the Labour Court against the decision of the Junior Labour Court within 15 days of the delivery thereafter. The intention of the Legislature from these two provisions is very obvious. The intention to have attacked the decision of the Labour Court as soon as possible so that Industrial peace is not disturbed. 8 3. In this case the General Secretary cannot take shelter that the case before the Labour Court was not properly represented. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani appeared for the applicant in the Labour Court while the General Secretary Muhammad Aqil appeared for the Union. Counter- affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the Management. In this connection Annexure F of the affidavit of Muhammad, Manager of the respondent Mill would disclose that the Acting General Secretary, Mr. Muhammad Aqil has entered into settlement on behalf of the Union with the respondent Mill on the 4th of August 1973, wherein he has signed as Acting General Secretary. It was an important settlement in so far I6 workmen at least to receive their dues and four were re-instated. In these circumstances I am not prepared to accept the statement of the General Secretary that Muhammad Aqil was a Treasurer and has been won over by the Management. In these circumstances and for the reasons disclosed above