DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi accepting grievance petition of Hamid Qadeer, Electrical Chargeman, Diesel Shop, Pakistan Railways and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent Hamid Qadeer proceeded on leave from 10.10- 1994 to 12-11-1994 for one month on the ground that he suffered from Sciatica pain. The respondent neither reported for duty after one month nor applied for medical leave. He was not under treatment of any Railway Doctor. The respondent ultimately appeared after 12 months and reported for duty but was served with show-cause notice on 17-6-1995 and domestic enquiry was conducted by Assistant Personnel Officer-II and Assistant Mechanical Engineer-I. This enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in Form and not in the usual Examination-in-Chief and Cross Examination Form. This enquiry was considered defective by the Labour Court and the respondent was reinstated in service with back benefits.
3. At the very outset the learned Advocate for the respondent has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Railways is barred by limitation. The judgment was delivered on 30th November, 1996 but the copy of judgment was applied for on 4th January, 1997. The copy was delivered on 4th January, 1997 and the appeal was filed on 4th January, 1997. Thus, the copy of judgment was applied for after 30 days for filing appeal had already expired. No application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Raja Shamsuzzaman admits that the appeal was barred by limitation but says that when the order was passed the Labour Court closed for vacation and so he filed the application for copies on the opening day on 4th January, 1997. The Office of the Labour Court is open and there is no vacation granted to any of the Officers of the Court. The Judge gets about six days in lieu of vacation but there is always a Vacation Judge on duty for all the Courts. The application for copies is never presented to the Judge but it is presented to the C.O.C.
And he had no vacation. This excuse for filing appeal late cannot be sustained. The appeal is, therefore, clearly time-barred. In any case there is no application showing any such cause of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as time-barred.
Appeal dismised.