2009 PLP 259 (PLC)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Versus AKHTAR ABBAS
| Citation | 2009 PLP 259 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Shaheen Masud Rizvi, J |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Versus AKHTAR ABBAS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 259 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 259 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Syed Shaheen Masud Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 259 (PLC) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Versus AKHTAR ABBAS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Qasim Khan, A.A.-G for Appellant.
- Muhammad Abdul Wadood for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 46 & 48--Appeal against order of Labour Court
Employer in the appeal had challenged order passed by the Labour Court wherein grievance petition of employee was accepted and he was reinstated in service
Appeal was 65 days beyond limitation prescribed under the law, though appellant had tried its best to explain the delay
Administrative grounds could not be made basis for condoning the delay
Appeal was dismissed as being time barred.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHEEN MASUD RIZVI, J.
Through this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order 28-6-2001 passed by the learned Labour Court-9, Multan wherein the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was reinstated in service. The respondent had challenged through the grievance petition his termination from service by the petitioner. The case was proceeded ex parte against the appellant before the learned Labour Court. The main consideration with the learned Labour Court while deciding the case was that the respondent was not given charge-sheet and that the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to defend his case.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the notice was not properly served on the, appellant and that the appellant is a civil servant and he should have gone before the Service Tribunal. Learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to explain the delay in filing the instant appeal.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the instant appeal is 65 days beyond a limitation prescribed under the law although he has tried his best to explain the delay but I am afraid that administrative grounds cannot be made basis for condoning the delay. As such the appeal is dismissed as being time-barred. H.B.T./E-3/L Appeal dismissed.