DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT. PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus KHUDA BUKSH

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 1‑6‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with half back benefits.

2. The application for condonation of delay has been given for condoning the delay in the presentation of the present appeal on the ground that on 1‑6‑1980 decision was to be announced by the learned lower Court but the case was not called upto 3 p.m., inasmuch as the Presiding Officer had left the Court premises and the reader Mukhtar Ahmad told Bashir Ahmed, representative of the appellant, that the order would be announced on the following day; that on 2‑6‑1986 no order was announced and on inquiry the acting reader Mukhtar Ahmad said that the order would be announced on 1‑7‑1986; that on 1‑7‑1986 Bashir Ahmad attended the Court but (lid not find the case in the cause list and Mukhtar Ahmad could not give him any clue, whereupon he attended the Court on 2‑7‑1980 and on inquiry the Presiding Officer informed him that the case had been decided on 1‑6‑1980, whereupon he made an application for copy on 2‑7‑1980; that the said Bashir Ahmad approached the reader Mukhtar Ahmad repeatedly for getting copy of the order but he was put off on one pretext or the other, whereupon he finally contented the Presiding Officer on 24‑7‑1986 and requested for the copy who told him that the previous application was not traceable, therefore, fresh application for copy be given which he did and copy was supplied to him on 24‑7‑1980. In support of the affidavit Bashir Ahmad came in the witness box. Mukhtar Ahmad was also examined as A.W.

2. No evidence was produced by the respondent. Whatever is contained in the affidavit and in the statement of Bashir Ahmad consists of bundle of lies. Since Bashir Ahmad is the employee of the appellant, his bare statement uncorroborated by other evidence is not acccputhle. On the other hand A.W. 2 Mukhtar Ahmad is a disinterested person, inasmuch as he is neither interested in the case of the appellant nor in the case of the respondent and he has not supported Mr. Bashir Ahmad A.W.

1. Presumption of correctness is attached to the Court proceedings for the rebuttal of which very strong evidence is required. The impugned decision carries the date as 1‑6‑1980 which clearly shows that the judgment was actually announced on the said date. Mukhtar Ahmad (A.W. 2) has not stated that he had told Bashir Ahmad on 1‑6‑1980 that the order had not been announced and had asked him to come on the following day. He also does not had‑told him that on 2‑6‑1980 Bashir Ahmad had come to him and that he had told him that the order would be announced on 1‑7‑1986. Likewise Mukhtar Ahmad does not say that on 1‑7‑1986 Bashir Ahmad had come to him. Bashir Ahmad also stated that on 2‑7‑1986 he had appeared before the learned Presiding Officer who told him that the order had been announced on 1‑6‑1986 after 3 p.m. but there is no evidence on the record to support this portion of the statement of Bashir Ahmad. The applicant did not examine the learned Presiding Officer. Bashir Ahmad stated that there were other cases also fixed on 1‑h‑1986 and I hat he had appeared in those cases presence of Mr. Hakam Ali, Litigation Inspector, was recorded and that the attendance of Bashir Ahmad was not recorded. It is thus clear that Bashir Ahmad did not attend Court No. 9 on 1‑0‑1986.

3. The other thing is that the application for copy was also given late. Bashir Ahmad stated that he had delivered application for copy to Mukhtar Ahmad on 2‑7‑1986 but Mukhtar Ahmad denied this fact He also slated that no application for copy was given to him even on 24‑7‑1986. He explained that the application for copies are given to the reader who at that time was Abdul Razzak. There are contradictions also in the affidavit of Bashir Ahmad and his statement. In the affidavit Bashir Ahmad said that on 2.1‑7‑1986 the Presiding Officer had said that application of 2‑7‑1986 had been lost, therefore, he should make another application but in his statement he stated on the contrary that the Ahmad had said so. The other contradiction is that in the affidavit Bashir Ahmad said that on 1‑7‑1986 he learnt that the case had been decided on 1‑6‑1986 but in application annexure 'A' it is said that the S 7 1956 the respondent supplied to him copy of the order whereupon he rushed to the Court. Since application fur copy was made after the expiry of the period for lodging the appeal, therefore, false stories were concocted to the order was not announced on 1‑6‑1986 and that afterwards on 1‑7‑1986 or 2‑7‑1986 Bashir Ahmad A.W. 1 was informed about it. In tile absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be held that the order was actually announced by the learned Presiding Officer on 1st or 2nd July, 19811 and that it was anti‑dated as 1‑6‑1980. After all why the carried Presiding Officer should have done so. Thus, no case of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been made out.

4. As a result, the appeal is treated as time‑barred and is dismissed on this ground.

A.E./593/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.