(vii) That the respondent compensates the applicant for loss of fixed allowances from Syarikat Gransea (M) Sdn Bhd amounting to RM5,000.00 a month from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement of the applicant. [2] At the leave stage of this proceedings, this court dismissed the application seeking leave to file a judicial review. The reason for this court’s decision is the application was out of time and did not comply with the requirements of Order 53 Rule 3 (6) Rules of the High Court 2012. [3] This is the grounds for this court’s decision. Brief Factual Background [4] The respondent dismissed the applicant effective from the respondent’s employment on 5.10.2018. The applicant’s application for judicial review was filed on 15.10.2021. [5] There was a delay amounting to 3 years and 10 days in filing the application for judicial review from the effective date of the applicant’s dismissal. [6] According to the applicant, the delay in filing of the application for judicial review is due several factors. Not being satisfied with the respondent’s dismissal, the applicant had appealed his dismissal by the respondent to the Badan Rayuan Tatatertib. This appeal was dismissed by the Badan Rayuan Tatatertib who affirmed the respondent’s decision. [7] The appellant then commenced proceedings in the Industrial Court for wrongful dismissal. The case was registered with case number 4/4- 877/19. [8] However, around 13.1.2020, the Industrial Court directed the appellant’s solicitors to withdraw the case at the Industrial Court as the Industrial Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the fact that the respondent is a government agency. [9] Once the appeal at the Industrial Court was withdrawn, the appellant did not proceed with the claim as he presumed he was unable to make a claim against the respondent. [10] In 2020 and 2021, the Covid-19 pandemic engulfed the whole world including our country. According to the appellant this further resulted in the delay of his filing of this judicial review application. Evaluation and Findings [11] The procedures relating to an application for judicial review is provided for in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Pertaining to the time frame to file an application for judicial review, Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as reproduced below: “53. 3(6) An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.” [12] Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of Court 2012 states that an application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant. [13] Pertaining to the time in which an applicant is required to file an application, the Court of Appeal in case of Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 123 held as follows: “The word 'and' between the word 'promptly' and the words 'in any event within 40 days' in its plain and ordinary meaning clearly is not disjunctive but conjunctive. An aggrieved person is required to act 'promptly', and in any event, not later than forty days from 'the date when the grounds for the application first arose' or 'when the decision is first communicated to the respondent'. The rule envisages an easily ascertainable date. It imposes an obligation on the decision maker to make a decision, and to then communicate the decision. This is an integral part of the decision making process. That date when ascertained, and upon expiration of the prescribed time frame, such a decision then becomes 'final' and immune to challenge. The intention of the rules clearly is that it is in the public interest that an aggrieved person's right of access to the court has to yield to the need for a swift finality of decision.” [Emphasis added] [14] From the authorities cites, this requires the applicant to observe the strict time line which is provided for in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The need for a strict and stringent adherence to the time period which has been provided in Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of Court 2012 is meant to ensure the public authority has finality in their decision. It is intended to protect those entrusted with the enforcement of public duties against groundless harassment and to reduce delays in resolving applications in the interest of good administration. [See: Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 5 CLJ 865 and Ketua Pengarah Kastam Dan Eksais v. Coach Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2019] 4 CLJ 454] [15] Nonetheless, the Rules of Court 2012 make provision for the court to grant an extension of time to file the judicial review application should there be a good reason for the court to do so. In this regard, reference is made to Order 53 Rule 3 (7) of the Rules of Court 2012 which states as reproduced below: “53. 3(7) The Court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in rule 4(1) and if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so.” [16] Therefore, premised on Order 53 rule 3 (7) of the Rules of Court 2012, it is incumbent on this court to determine whether there is a good reason for this court to allow the extension of time sought by the applicant. [17] The facts reveal that the respondent’s decision conveyed in the letter dated 2.10.2018 was first communicated to the applicant on 5.10.2018. This application for judicial review was filed on 15.10.2021. This is approximately 3 years after the decision was communicated to the applicant. [18] The reasons put forth by the applicant for his delay in filing this application for judicial review is that the applicant had, subsequent to his dismissal, initially filed an unfair dismissal case at the Industrial Court. However, the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s case as the respondent is a government agency, the applicant withdrew his case at the Industrial Court. [19] After the applicant withdrew his case from the Industrial Court, the applicant assumed that he was unable to claim compensation for his alleged unfair dismissal from the respondent. The applicant stated that he had financial difficulties to obtain legal advice and legal services due to Covid-19 pandemic and his unemployment. [20] The question before this court therefore is whether the applicant’s ignorance of the fact that the Industrial Court was not the forum to hear his dismissal case would amount to a good reason. To consider this question, this court alluded to the case of Deva Dass a/l Sundaraj v. Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang & Anor [2021] 1 LNS 91 where the court held as follows: “[10] Ignorance of the law, as we know, is not an acceptable excuse. [11] I also do not consider the responsibilities of making a living, attending to family obligations and falling ill occasionally to be good reasons. They are part and parcel to everyday life. [12] Even if I were to accept this as good reasons (which I do not), they only account for brief delay and do not explain his failure to act within the 3 months that he had and the 5 months 9 days that he took.” [Emphasis added] [21] The fact that the applicant had filed his claim against the respondent at the Industrial Court, which he subsequently found out not to be the correct forum as the respondent was a public body, in fact is ignorance on the part of the applicant. This ignorance of the law is no excuse. In short, this court cannot consider the fact that the applicant had filed his claim in the Industrial Court as a good reason for the delay in filing this judicial review application. [22] After the withdrawal of the claim at the Industrial Court, the applicant stated that he assumed he had no avenue to file his claim against the respondent. This too in the view of this court, demonstrated the applicant’s lack of knowledge pertaining to the issues of filing his claim. As stated in the earlier paragraphs and the risk of repetition, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Moreover, this court is of the considered view there were other avenues available to the applicant. The applicant could, this court opines, have sought legal advice from the Legal Aid Department. Unfortunately, the applicant did not consider this avenue. [23] It was further submitted that the lack of financial capabilities and the Covid-19 pandemic had resulted in the applicant having difficulty in obtaining legal advise. Consequentially, this in turn resulted in the delay in the filing of the applicant’s application for judicial review. [24] In the case of Mohd Shahidi Fauzano Mohd Shafie v. Assistant Komisioner Polis Tuan Haji Rosli Din Sebagai Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib & Ors [2016] 1 LNS 806 the court held that lack of financial capabilities was not a good enough reason for the delay in filing the application for judicial review. The court stated: “12. I have considered with care a number of submissions made to me on behalf of the Applicant to the effect that substantial hardship would be suffered by the Applicant if the leave sought is not granted. However, in my view the reasons given by the Applicant in his affidavit in support that he had taken reasonable steps by firstly engaging the Legal Aid Department but his effort was futile, secondly there was no assistance by the police force to provide him with legal assistance and thirdly his financial incapability to engage a lawyer do not amount to 'a good reason' for failure to file the application within the time prescribed by Order 53 Rule (3) of the RC 2012.