' These are five Appeals bearing Nos,158, 159, 160, 161 and 162 of 1999, filed under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against a common decision dated 10-5-1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,1, dismissing the grievance applications under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. In all the five appeals, there are applications under section 65-B of the I.R.O., 1969 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay, supported by the affidavit, contents where of are same and similar. I intend to dispose them of by this common judgment.
3. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Azmati, learned counsel for the appellants and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, on preadmision notice.
4. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, in the first instance, invited my attention to the applications under section 65-B of I.R.O., 1969, for condonation of delay, as moved by the learned counsel for the appellants, and requested me that the said applications be disposed of first because it is the duty of the Court itself to decide the question of limitation first. I, therefore, decided to take up those applications first.
5. The impugned order was passed on 10-5-1999, copy was ready on 15-5-199. However, an application for copy was made on 19-5-1999, copy was supplied on 20-5-1999 and the appeals were filed on 20-9-1999, after a delay of about three months. I asked Mr. Azmati, learned counsel for the appellants, which he candidly conceded that appeals have been filed after about three months' delay.
6. Mr. Ashraf submits that the appeals should have been filed on 15-6-1999 or at the best on 20-6- 1999. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was closed, is not tenable inasmuch as the office of the Tribunal remained open throughout, as per order, passed by me and there was no bar in filing the appeal. In fact, urgent matters were heard during vacations. Mr. Ashraf also submits that he had himself filed an application during vacation, in a pending appeal, for antedating the same and order was passed thereon. Besides, about twenty transfer applications were filed and disposed of during vacations by me, therefore, this plea is not available to the learned counsel for the appellants. Even otherwise, the appeal coud have been filed on the first re-opening day after the vacation, if he was under the impression, which was wrong, that the offices were closed. But the apeals were filed on 20-9-1999, about one and a half month after the Court was re-opened and started its normal working.
7. I have perused, with the learned counsel for the respondent, the affidavit filed in support of applications under section 65-B for condonation of delay. The reasons, given in the affidavits, are quite unsatisfactory. Reference may be made to para.2 of the affidavit which says that. "I was interested to file the appeal against the impugned decision whereby my counsel prepared this appeal in time but my parent did not allow to persue the matter it was, thus, not possible for me to come to the Court for filing this appeal". The appellants also stated in para. 3 that, "my parents have not permitted me to make any other attempt to avail the remedy for administration of justice". In para. 4, the appellants stated that, "there are several other factors like poverty, lack of resources and means of bearing the costs of the case. In the circumstances, it was impossible to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal in spite of my wish, desire and intention". The reasons given in the affidavits hardly justify the condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
8. The applications under section 65-B for condonation of delay are dismissed.
9. In result, the appeals stand dismissed in limine as time-barred.