1. ' The appellants Messrs Zafar Iqbal, Sher Ali and Ahmad Hassan were employers of the Lahore Hotel, McLeod Road, Lahore.
2. ' They were dismissed from service by the employer and they filed three separate applications under section 25-A of the I. R. O. 1969, against the Managing Director Lahore Hotel, McLeod Road, Lahore I. e. The respondent seeking re-instatement before Junior Labour Court, No, 2, Lahore.
3. ' The said learned Court by its order, dated 29th July, 1975, disposed of all the three applications by one order and dismissed the petitions of the appellants holding that they were guilty of wilful insubordinations and had conducted themselves in a manner which amounted to misconduct.
4. ' The aforesaid order dated 29th July, 1975, has been impugned through the present appeal which has been filed on 9th September 1975. The Memorandum of appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that originally the appellants filed application for obtaining copy of the impugned order on 1st August, 1975, but they were informed that the Presiding Officer was on leave. Subsequently, it transpired that the said application was dated 26th August, 1975 and on the basis of that copy they filed the present appeal. No affidavit has been filed by any of the appellants or by the representative of the appellants to support the contentions stated in the application for condonation of delay. According to the record of the learned lower Court, the impugned order was announced on 29th July, 1975, and the application for obtaining copy of this order was filed by the appellants on 26th August, 1975. On the same day it was prepared and delivered.
5. ' It is noteworthy that period for filing appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1961, has been prescribed as 15 days. No application for obtaining cony of the impugned order appears to have been filed by the appellants within the prescribed period of limitation. By 26th August, 1975, the date on which the appellant applied for copy of the impugned order and the application not traceable, there is hardly any justification for the appellant to tile the present appeals on 9th September 1975, when they admittedly obtained the copy of the impugned order on 26th August, 1975. This is a settled proposition of law that after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation each day of delay is to be satisfactorily explained. No such explanation is forthcoming in the present case. I hay A carefully gone through the written arguments submitted today by the learned representative of the appellants, but nothing has been said in the written arguments on the point of limitation.
6. ' In the light of what has been said above it is concluded that the present appeal is grossly barred by time and is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.