1. KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, J.---As the short point involved in this petition pertains to question of limitation only we heard the counsel for the parties earlier and today we have heard them again at length with a view to finally dispose of the petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3, Hamid Qadeer, applied for one month's leave from 10-10-1994 to 12-11-1994 on medical ground but he failed to report for duty after the expiry of leave and it appears that he reported for duty almost after twelve months. On 17-6-1995 a show cause notice was issued to him and later a domestic enquiry was conducted wherein he appears to have been found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed. The employee approached the Sind Labour Court No. V under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging his dismissal. His grievance petition was allowed by order dated 30-11-1996 and he was reinstated in service with full back benefits. This order of the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner before the Sind Labour Appellate. Tribunal in appeal which was filed on 4-1-1997. It appears that a plea was taken before the Tribunal that the appeal was barred by the: The objectionable prevailed with the learned Tribunal who by decision dated 27-3-1997 dismissed the appeal as the-barred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was within the as the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was on winter vacation from 26-12-1996 to 9-1-1997 and the Labour Courts were closed for vacation from 26-12-1996 to 3-1-1997. In support of his contention he hits filed copies of to orders, one of these issued by the Registrar of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, states that, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal will remain closed on account of Winter Holidays from 26th December, 1996 to 9 January, 1997 and will open on Saturday 10th of January, 1997.th The office of the Tribunal will remain open during Winter Holidays."
4. The second notification deals with the observance of winter holidays by the Labour Courts. It provides that, "The High Court has notified the Winter Holidays to the District and Sessions Judge from 26th December, 1996 to 3rd of January. 1997. As per orders of the Hon'ble Chairman the following Presiding Officers of Sind Labour Court will remain in their offices and will do the urgent work of their Courts as well as of the other Courts on the dates shown against each."
5. From the above notifications, it is apparent that while the Sind Labour Courts were to observe Winter Holidays from 26-12-1996 to 3-1-1997, the Labour Appellate Tribunal was to remain closed for that purpose from 26-12-1996 to 9-1-1997. In the present case, the Sind Labour Court having passed the order of re-instatement of respondent No. 3 on 30-11-1996, the petitioner had the to file the appeal up to 30-12-1996. However, as is apparent from the notification, the Labour Courts observed winter holidays from 26-12-1996 to 3-1-1997 and reopened on 4-1-1997 on' which date the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order which was supplied to it on the same day and the appeal was filed in the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal also on the same day.
6. The present case would appear to attract the provision of section 4 of the Limitation Act which reads as under:-- "Where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, or appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on, the day when the Court reopens."
7. It is true that during the winter holidays of the Labour Appellate Tribunal its office remained opened but that cannot deprive the petitioner of the benefit of the abovementioned provision of section 4 which provides for extension of the period of limitation if it expires on a day when the Court is closed. There is no mention of 'office' in the section and there can be no justification to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of the provision by giving extended meaning to the expression 'Court' used therein so as to include the ' office' also, all the more, when the word 'Court' as used in the section as also the notification is not synonymous with 'office'. It has been observed in the case of Fazal Karim and another v. Ghulam Jilani and others (1975 SCM R 452) where it was observed: "------From the plain reading of section 4 of the Limitation Act, it becomes abundantly clear that the period during which the Court remains closed on account of vacations, has to be excluded for the computation of limitation and the notification cannot take precedence over the statutory provision. Even otherwise, we find that there is no conflict between the notification and the provision contained in section 4 of the Limitation Act. According to the notification, the office was to remain open for receipt of petitions from persons who might choose to file. Surely, the word 'Office' as used in the notification is not synonymous with 'Court' as used in section 4 of the Limitation Act.
8. The Court may be closed and yet the office might still be open. "
9. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was not justified in dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. As such, we set aside the impugned decision and remand the case to the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision on merit.
2. In view of the above order, this application stands dismissed as having become infructuous.