DECISION This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 64 days and was admitted subject to the point of limitation.
The order of the Labour Court was passed on 9-12-1992 and the copy was applied for on 9-12-1992.
It is said in the affidavit in support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act that on the receipt of the order, the competent authority by letter dated 1-2-1993 sought advise from the Law Division WAPDA Lahore and there was a direction to submit the required information to the Legal Ad6sor Lahore for taking necessary action. Then the appellant concerned had asked the Superintending Engineer to collect all the document,. There is also a mention of some member of the staff being sent to collect papers from the counsel who was appearing at Sukkur. It was ultimately on the 13th of April that the appeal came to be presented before this Tribunal.
3. Mr. Siddique Mir/it learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the papers were moving to and from three different places, and some office routine also was necessarily involved, this will lm a fit case to condone the delay. He also referred to the case of Ali Muhammad v. Hussain .Box PLD 1976 SC page 37.
4. The case had been transferred by the N.I.R.C. To the Labour Court for adjudication. It has not been contended before me that the N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction in the matter. Be as it may there is a string of authority in which it has been held that the Government cases are not to be treated differently from an ordinary, litigant. I am afraid sufficient cause has not been made out for condonation of delay. See Government of Baluchistan v. Abdul Nabi and-- another 1988 SCM R.1906.
As a result I will dismiss it on that ground alone.