Pakistan Case LawSINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANISATION, SUKKUR Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
This appeal arises from an order of the Labour Court directing a fresh enquiry into the dismissal of the respondent, Muhammad Ibrahim, by the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant has provided sufficient cause to condone an eleven-day delay in filing the appeal against the Labour Court's order. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting that it is the bounden duty of parties to remain informed about the dates of court orders. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that they only gained knowledge of the order on the 11th, characterizing this as a nonchalant attitude that does not warrant condonation of delay. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, while affirming the Labour Court's original direction that the fresh enquiry be completed within two months. The key principle established is that parties bear an affirmative duty to remain cognizant of court dates, and a failure to do so without a valid, satisfactory explanation does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal.
- Is a party's ignorance of a court's order date sufficient cause to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
- Does a party have an affirmative duty to remain informed about the dates of court orders?
- Can an appeal be dismissed solely on the grounds of an unexplained delay in filing?
DECISION
The respondent was proceeded against for misconduct and on the receipt of the enquiry report he was dismissed from service. After the preliminaries had been settled he had filed the petition before the Labour Court in which the impugned order was passed ordering fresh enquiry which was to be completed within a period of two months.
2.In the appeal preferred against the same there is a delay of about 11 days.
3.Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon states that the knowledge of the order came to him on the 11th. The order sheet disclosed that the matter was kept for orders on the 25th of March, 1992. On that date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the date of judgment was kept for 1‑4‑1992.
4.It was the bounden duty of the parties to be knowing about the date of the order. The diary shows that the Reader had given the date of 1‑4‑1992. The contention that the knowledge came on the 11th is hardly tenable. Such a non chalant attitude hardly has anything to commend. At least the parties should have been there. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. I do not find any sufficient cause to condone the same.
5.This is enough to dispose of the appeal. The further enquiry should be completed within two months as ordered by the Court below.
Orders accordingly,
H.B.T./2203/Lb.S
Order accordingly
Judges on this bench
- Agha Ali Hyder560 judgments