' Muhammad Ali Appellant was employed as Coolie in Carriage Depot. General Store, Mughalpura Lahore. He was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct w. e. f. Afternoon of dated 10th October, 1973.
2. On 29th January, 1975 he filed application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Junior Labour Court No, 1, Lahore against the respondent seeking his re- instatement with back benefits. He contended in his application that during the course of departmental enquiry he was held not guilty by the enquiry officer but the punishing authority unlawfully served show-cause notice on him and ultimately ordered his removal from service.
3. The respondent resisted the appellant's petition and pleaded that the appellant was removed from service on 10th October, 1973. His departmental appeal was rejected on 29th November, 1973 and therefore his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which he filed on 29th January, 1975 was grossly barred by time.
4. After hearing the parties and after recording the statement of the appellant the learned Lower Court by its order dated 29th November, 1975 concluded that the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was badly barred by time and consequently the same was dismissed. The said order dated 29th November, 1975 of the learned Lower Court has been impugned through the present appeal which has been filed on 28th December, 1975.
5. It appears that after the order dated 29th November, 1975 i,e, the data which the impugned order was announced the appellant applied for obtaining the copy of the impugned order on 1st December, 1975. The copy was delivered to him on 4th December, 1975. The period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance being 51 days this appeal after deducting the period spent in preparing the copy should have been filed on 18th December, 1975. This has actually been filed on 28th December, 1975. This shows that the appeal is time- barred.
6. The appellant however has filed an application seeking condonation of delay on the ground of ailment. He has produced a certificate of Hakim Muhammad Umer Sabri and of Dr. Saeed Akhtar.
According to the certificate of Hakim Muhammad Umer Sabri the appellant remained under the treatment of the said Hakim till dated 17th December 1975. Dr. Saeed Akhtar declared the appellant fit w. e. f. Dated 23rd December 1975 forenoon. On the same day the present appeal has been filed.
In the circumstances the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
7. As regards the merits of the case it is evident from the statement of the appellant himself that he was removed from service on the charge of misconduct on 10th October, 1973. According to the Railway Efficiency and Discipline Rules only one departmental appeal is permissible. The appellant filed that appeal which was dismissed and the appellant was informed vide letter dated 1st December, 1973 which is Exh. P-1/1. The appellant filed application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the learned Lower Court as late as 29th January, 1975 i,e, more than a year after the dismissal of his appeal. He has alleged in his application that he has been making representations to the departmental authorities for his re-instatement but such representations cannot extend the period of limitation. The order of removal from service of the appellant cannot be considered as an order without jurisdiction merely on the ground that the enquiry officer had absolved the appellant of the guilt. The competent authority had every right to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer.
8. In view of the above it is concluded that the application filed by the appellant before the learned Lower Court is badly barred by time and has therefore rightly been dismissed as being belated one. There is thus no merit in this appeal which is dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.