DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated 12th October, 1973.
2. Mr. M. A. Khan, for the respondent, has raised two preliminary objections, namely: (1) That the appeal is time-barred by one day. It should have been filed on the 11th of November, 1973 and not on 12th November, 1973; and (2) That Mr. A. Majeed was required to file a Letter of Authority from the Union, which is not on the record. Ismail Khan v. Aziz Bidi Works {Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal)
3. On the face of it, the appeal is time-barred. The award was given on 12th October, 1973. The appeal should have been filed within thirty days, under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The date on which the award was given, i.e., 12-10-1973, will be excluded under the Limitation Act. October was of 31 days. There-I fore, the appellant can claim 19 days in October, 1973 and 11 days inr4 November, 1973.
The appeal should have been filed on the 11th of November, 1973 and not on 12th November 1973.
The appeal is clearly time- barred by one day. No application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay. Mr. Majeed stated that he was misled by the noting of the Registrar that the appeal was within time and on this ground prayed for time to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is true, he may have been misled by the noting of the Registrar that the appeal was within time, but primarily it is for an Advocate or Representative, who is filing an appeal, to discharge his duty and to find out if the appeal was within time or not. Mr. Majeed has clearly failed to discharge his duty as a concientious Representative and, therefore, no case for granting time to make an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is made out. The second objection is much more fatal. The Memorandum of Appeal purports to have been signed by one M. Mukhtar Khan, A. C. S., through A. Majeed. The office on 12th November, 1973, made a note requiring Mr. Majeed to file a Letter of Authority from the Union before 10th December, 1973, the date fixed for admission. In this connection, Mr. Khan also submitted that the signature of Mr. M. Mukhtar Khan is in long hand, while his signature on the application is not in long hand, but only a signature. Similarly, at page 139 of the record of the lower Court, Mr. M.
Mukhtar Khan has signed the Memorandum of Settlement as not in the long hand, but similar to the one on the application under section 34 of the Ordinance, at page 9 of the record of the lower Court. It seems from the contention of Mr. Khan that some fictitious person signed as M. Mukhtar Khan on the Memorandum of Appeal and not the real M. Mukhtar Khan. The only conclusion, Mr. Khan submitted, that can be drawn in these circumstances, is that the Union itself was not keen to pursue the appeal. I accept the contention of Mr. Khan on both the points and dismiss the appeal as time-barred and also not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.