' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Hanif has tiled this petition seeking leave against the following order dated 15-6-1998 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal:-- ' "Heard Mr. Abdul Karim, Advocate for the appellant. He has filed an application on 12-5-1998 requesting therein that the appeal dismissed on 29-12-1996 he restored in the interest of justice which is supported by the affidavit of the appellant as well as four (4) medical certificates issued by Dr. Abdullah Khan Marwat, Senior Medical Officer ,Incharge D.H.Q. Lakki Marwat; he has also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act which is also supported by the affidavit. The main contention of the learned Counsel is that the appellant left for his village in the month of December, 1995, due to illness of his mother and subsequently he himself fell sick and was under treatment and advised rest. According to him he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal on 30-4-1998 as such he filed this application for restoration on 12-5-1998. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the absence was beyond the control of appellant but no reason whatsoever assigned as to why his advocate did not appear nor there is any affidavit of the Advocate to this affect as to why he chooses to remain absent. Perusal of the medical certificate reveals that doctor has advised the appellant bed rest and not to take journey but not mentioned that he was also not in a position to a telephonic conversation or postal information from his Advocate. The learned counsel has relied on 1990 PLC (C.S.) P-398 and 1986 PLC P-257 and 300. We have minutely gone through the medical certificates, this medical certificate is even not counter- signed by the Civil Surgeon of the area as provided by law. This appeal was dismissed on 29-12- 1996 and restoration application is filed on 12-5-1998, as such there is a delay of about one and a half year which has not been explained and it is an established law that delay of every day is to be explained. Since there is delay of one and a half year we don't find any justification, even in the absence of the affidavit of Advocate. We accordingly reject this application."
' We have heard Mr. M. Muzaffarul Hall, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, in support of the present petition for leave.
2. As is evident from the impugned order reproduced hereinabove, appeal tiled by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal was dismissed on 29-12-1996 for non-prosecution and the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal after about 1-1/2 year on 12-5-1998. Valid reasons have been given by the Tribunal which are apparent from a perusal of the impugned order. At best, the case of the petitioner, if accepted in toto, is that he had gone to his village in December, 1995, on account of illness of his mother and subsequently he became sick and remained under medical treatment and came to know about the dismissal of the appeal on 30-4-1998 and then he filed the application for restoration on 12-5-1998. Petitioner's case is of sickness and being advised to take rest. His case was not even this that he was suffering from a disease which made him immobile for all practical purposes and that there was no member of his family who could contact petitioner's Advocate or post a letter to him to find out the fate of his appeal. Reasons given by the Tribunal for dismissal of the application for restoration are weighty and the impugned order does not call for interference. Even otherwise the case does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance for grant of leave.
' This petition lacks merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.