1984 PLP 1312 (PLC(CS))
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MULTAN Versus Mst. ANWAR BIBI
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1312 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MULTAN Versus Mst. ANWAR BIBI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1312 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1312 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1312 (PLC(CS)) (MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MULTAN Versus Mst. ANWAR BIBI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Hussain for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 28th February, 1984.
- ‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation ‑ Delay ‑ Condonation ‑ Sufficient ground‑Delayed sanction of Advocate‑General for appointment of counsel ‑Not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
- 3. The appeal is time‑barred. The ground given is that a letter was sent by the Mayor on 27th October, 1983 to the Advocate‑General for the appointment of some lawyer and sanction came on 29th December, 1983. So the appeal was presented on 7th January, 1984. No copy of the letter alleged to have been sent by the Mayor to the Advocate‑General, nor any copy of the sanction received from him has been filed. Apart from it this is no ground for condonation. Law of limitation is for all the litigants.' Since in routine sanction is received late, so sanction should have been obtained by sending a special messenger. No ground of condonation has been established.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation ‑ Delay ‑ Condonation ‑ Sufficient ground‑Delayed sanction of Advocate‑General for appointment of counsel ‑Not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation ‑ Delay ‑ Condonation ‑ Sufficient ground‑Delayed sanction of Advocate‑General for appointment of counsel ‑Not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Iftikhar Hussain for Appellant. Date of hearing : 28th February, 1984. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 31st July, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9 Multan whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in the service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed in the leave vacancy of Mst. Azim Khatoon. On the death of Mst. Aziz Khatoon the vacancy became perma nent. The respondent was recommended to be absorbed regularly. She had been awarded two‑yearly increments also, but was terminated on the ground that she did not appear before the Selection Board. There is no evidence on the record that the respondent was asked in writing to appear on a particular date before the Selection Board. Even no copy of the order of the Selection Board is on the record to show that due to her non appearance she was not approved. She was, therefore, wrongly terminated.
3. The appeal is time‑barred. The ground given is that a letter was sent by the Mayor on 27th October, 1983 to the Advocate‑General for the appointment of some lawyer and sanction came on 29th December, 1983. So the appeal was presented on 7th January, 1984. No copy of the letter alleged to have been sent by the Mayor to the Advocate‑General, nor any copy of the sanction received from him has been filed. Apart from it this is no ground for condonation. Law of limitation is for all the litigants.' Since in routine sanction is received late, so sanction should have been obtained by sending a special messenger. No ground of condonation has been established.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine on merits as well as being time‑barred rejecting the application for condonation of delay. A. E. Appeal dismissed.