1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21-6-1975 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI-Hyderabad dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of being time- barred.
2. The facts forming the background of this petition are that, on 1-8-1943, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Station Master in the N: W. Railway of India. After the Partition, he opted for India and he was relieved on 11-6-1948. Subsequently he changed his mind and made an application for being re-appointed which application was favourably considered and he was appointed as a temporary Assistant S. M. In which post he was confirmed on 15-7-1948. He thereafter made several representations to the Railway Authorities for counting his seniority from the original date of his appointment with the Government of India on 1-8-43 but his representations were turned down except that his services, for the purposes of pension, gratuity and special contribution provident fund only, were counted from 1-8-43. Having thus failed to obtain the relief from the petitioners railway authorities, the respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Junior Labour Court for giving a direction to the petitioners to count his service, for the purpose of seniority, also from 1-8-43 when he was originally appointed. This application was allowed by the Junior Labour Court by its order dated 7-12-1974 and the petitioners were directed to count the seniority of the respon--dent No. 3 with effect from 1-8-43. The petitioners went in appeal against the order of the Junior Labour Court. Before the appellate Court, however the respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection of the appeal being time---barred on the ground that although the copy of the order passed by the Junior Labour Court had been delivered to the petitioners on 14-12-1974, they did not file appeal till 22-3-1975, whereas, the appeal had to be filed within 15 days of the passing of the order by the Junior Labour Court, as provided under section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioners contested the objection and submitted that the copy of the order had been supplied to them on 15-3-1975 and as such the appeal filed by them on 22-3-1975 was well within time and could not be dismissed as time- barred. The appellate Court however accepted the objection and dismissed the appeal. Hence this .Petition.
3. Mr. Abdul Matin, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the certified copy of the order of the Junior Labour Court itself showed that it was delivered to the petitioners on 8-3-1975 and the copy was initialled by the Reader of the Court who admitted in his examination before the appellate Court also that the copy of the order passed by the Junior Labour Court had been delivered to the petitioners on 8-3-1975, and, therefore, the appellate Court below was absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appeal as time barred, on the presumption, wrongly entertained by it, that the copy of the order had been delivered to the petitioners on 14-12-1974.
4. The learned counsel next contended that in any case, the very application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance made by the respondent No. 3 before the Junior Labour Court was not maintainable as it provides a remedy in case of infringement of any right guaranteed or secured to a worker etc. By or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force and since the respondent No. 3 had failed to show that his claim of counting his seniority in service with effect from 4-8-1943, after he had exercised his option for India and lead been in fact relieved of his post, was guaranteed to him by or under any law or order of the petitioner authority, the application was not maintainable.
5. Mr. Sadiq A.I Khoja, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 very fairly stated that in view of the fact that the certified copy of the order passed by the Junior Labour Court and delivered to the petitioner showed the date of delivery as 8-3-1975 and bore the initials of the Reader of the Court of the same date, which fact was also verified by the Reader before the first appellate authority, he was unable to controvert the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and would have no objection if the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad is set aside and the matter is remanded for deciding the appeal on merits, as an appeal filed within time.
6. I fully agree with the learned counsel that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI acted illegally in holding the appeal as time-barred, inas--much as, the record clearly showed that the certified copy of the order was initialled by the Reader of the Court and delivered to the petitioners on 8-3- 1975 and the Reader of the Court had also testified to this fact in his deposition before the appellate Court. That being so, the learned Presiding Officer could not ignore such documentary evidence by relying on the presumption for which there existed no basis. Indeed, the perusal of the order passed by him would show that he overstretched himself in holding the appeal to be time-barred. It is no doubt true that delay vests a party with a very valuable right and that delay of each day has to be accounted for, but it is equally true that right of appeal is a very valuable one and party cannot be deprived of it unless it is clearly established that it had been lost by bar of limitation. In the instant case, there existed no legal basis for holding that the appeal was time-barred. As such, the observation made by the appellate Labour Court below were entirely irrelevant and did no apply.
7. As to the second contention of the learned counsel, since I have decided to remand the matter, I do not wish to make any observation and leave it for consideration by the appellate Court below.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the order dated 21-6-1975 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad holding the appeal to be time-barred and refusing to exercise jurisdiction is quashed and it is directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner be heard and decided on merits, as an appeal filed within time.
9. At this stage Mr. Sadiq A.I Khoja stated that his client, who is nearing retirement, has been making representations for years but the Railway Authorities have not considered his case as yet as he has not been supplied with any official order in respect thereof and, therefore, the petitioner be directed to consider the case of the respondent No. 3 on humanitarian grounds to provide him some relief; as he was even prepared to accept the next higher post as the last promotee without disturbing seniority of others promoted before him. Since I have decided to remand the matter, I do not consider it appropriate to give any such direction in this regard and would leave it to the appellate tribunal to consider this submission of the learned counsel. I will however add that Mr. Abdul Matin, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly and commenably, stated that he will advise his clients to consider the case of the respondent No. 3 and to see if any relief could be given to him on compassionate grounds, without affecting any other person.
10. There will be no order as to costs.