DECISION ' These are three appeals against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the applications filed by the appellants under section 25-A,
1. R.
0. On the ground of limitation.
2. The appellants' were in the service of the respondent railway. They received a notice dated 7th August, 1974 from the Head Train Examiner, P. W. R., Keamari that they were retired from service w. e. f. 7th August, 1974, as per letter of the Assistant Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railway, Karachi dated 6th August, 1974. On receipt of this letter the appellants filed appeals which were dismissed on 31st March. Consequently, a grievance notice dated 20th April, 1976 was served upon respondent and thereafter an application under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Was made to the Labour Court on 13th May, 1976.
3. The applications were resisted. A preliminary objection was taken that the applications were time barred as the appellants were retired from service w. e. f. 7th August, 1974 while the applications under section 25-A were made on 13th May, 1976. This objection found favour with the learned Presiding Officer and he dismissed the applications as time-barred. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals had been filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the learned Presiding Officer clearly erred in holding that the applications made under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Were time-barred. He completely disregarded effect of the appeals which had been filed. It has been conceded on behalf of the appellants that a right of appeal was available to the appellants.
So it was in pursuance of this right that the appeals had been filed. Since the appeals were decided on 31st March, 1976 the cause A of action arose from that date and not from the date when the actual order of retirement was passed. This view found supports from the authority of Supreme Court in the case of F. A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan It was, however, urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants slept over the matter and did not pursue the appeals earlier. I am unable to accept this argument for the simple reason that on the contrary the respondent failed to decide the appeals within a reasonable time and undue time was taken. The appellants could not be penalised for the carelessness of the respondent.
5. In result I hold that the applications filed by the appellants were within time and these were wrongly dismissed. I, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders and remand the eases to the Labour Court for disposal on merits. PLD 1974 SC 520