' A petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was filed by the contesting respondents before the Authority (a functionary under that Act) for payment of dues. It was contested by the petitioners but was accepted by the authority on 30-11-1986. A time-barred appeal was filed by the petitioners before Labour Court No,IV, Faisalabad accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the Labour Court as, barred by time on 30-9-1987. This is a writ petition against the same.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petition was not competent before the Authority as the respondents were civil servants and the order dismissing the appeal by the Labour Court that the same was time-barred is illegal inasmuch as the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act had been made for condonation of delay. According to him, the explanation for non- filing of the appeal within limitation was on account of time taken and required by the petitioners for managing the funds.
3. Sadiq Ali Hashmi, representative of the respondents contests this petition and submits that against the order of the Labour Court there was remedy of revision available to the petitioners before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which has not been availed of by the petitioners and that the present petition is not maintainable.
4. The petitioners were dully represented before the authority which passed the order against them on 30-11-1986 which order was challenged after more than 8 months of the same in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Labour Court after due application of mind to the explanation advanced in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was not found to be a sufficient reason for condonation of delay by the Labour Court. The reasoning that prevailed with the Labour Court in not condoning the delay cannot be regarded arbitrary or otherwise invalid. It has indeed been held in number of judgments by this Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan that in adjudication of matters before the Courts and with particular reference to section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Government is not entitled to any preference and is to be treated like an ordinary litigant before the Court. Reference may be made to Province of Punjab v. Sh. Zafar Din Ahmad (PLD 1977 Lahore 55) which was based on an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others (1970 SCMR 558). The principle has been reiterated quite recently by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager and 3 others (1998 SCMR 307) and it was observed that:-- "This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned the Government cannot be treated differently from an ordinary litigant. If in spite of erroneous resources and facilities, the Government continues to delay the filing of cases in time deterimental to its own interest, the opposite party cannot be penalised for its negligence."
' The petitioners were required to explain each day's delay before the appellate Court which they failed except a general assertion for 'condonation of delay. In the circumstances, order dismissing the appeal as time-barred does not, in any way, suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error.
5. The contention of the representative of the contesting respondents that the petitioners had failed to avail of the remedy available to them under the law, also is not without merit. Even the writ petition before this Court was filed on 16-2-1988, whereas, the order in the petition was passed on 30-9-1987. It has also an element of indolence and laches for which there is no explanation in the petition or forthcoming. In Mirza Maqbool Elahi through Legal Heirs and 8 others v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and 3 others (1998 SCMR 1074) it was observed that:- "the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was of an equitable nature and interference could be denied when the conduct of the petitioner had the element of acquiescence and laches.
' For the reasons abovementioned, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.