DECISION This is an appeal against the award of the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. II, dated the 6th of October 1973 in an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The facts giving rise to the impugned award briefly put are as under :-- 2. The respondent made an application under section 25-A of the I. R.O, of 1969 on the 23rd of June 1972 stating therein that he joined the appellant as Warper on a salary of Rs. 1,000 and was a Permanent Worker. That his services were terminated without show-cause notice, charge-sheet or the inquiry and that he made oral as well as written request to re-instate him but without any result.
Thereafter he approached the Labour Directorate which advised him on 21st of June 1972 to approach the Labour Court of appropriate remedy hence he made the application giving rise to the impugned award on the 23rd of June 1972.
3. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the application under section 25-A was not maintainable. The appellant had filed Reply Statement on the 6th of July 1972. An application for amendment was made on the 14th of September 1972.
The learned Court on 7th of March 1973 passed the following Order :-- "Heard Mr. Wasi Ahmed for the applicant. None is present for the respondent. "Since the amendment sought does not change the nature of the case, the prayer is granted. Amended application to be filed on 16-3-73."
4. The short point foe consideration in this case is as to whether by the amendment which was allowed on 2-3-1973 nature of the case was changed or not. It is noteworthy that on 2-3-1973, by amendment, section 34 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 which was published in Gazette on 10-11-1972 the word "Workman" was deleted from section 34. Thus it appears to me that the learned Court by his Order dated 2-3-1973 conferred a right on the respondent which he did not have on the date he made the application. Moreover the application on 23-6-1972 was very belated one, the Cause of Action having arisen in July 1971. It is true no time limit is prescribed under section 34 but anything required to be done within law must be done within a reasonable time. An application made after about one year of the Cause of Action cannot be said to be within reasonable time. There is no explanation for such a long delay. The fact that the respondent was pursuing his remedy before the Labour Directorate is not sufficient ground to explain the long delay. A person is supposed to know the correct law. Mr. Wasi Ahmad for the respondent contended in the first place that so long as his cilent was entitled to get the relief on the facts stated in his application the amendment cannot be said to change the nature of the case. There is no force in this contention. The nature of the case was very much changed as on 2nd of March 1973 no application could be made by an individual workman under section 34 of the I. R.
O. of 1969. In the second place it is submitted that the application under section 34 cannot be said to be belated as his client was pursuing his remedy before the Directorate. It was only on 21st of June 1972 that the Directorate advised 197i him to approach the appropriate Court for redress of his grievances. As I have already observed ignorance of law is no excuse. The respondent should have known when his services were terminated in July 1971 as to what he has to do. ' For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and the award of the learned Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.