1995 PLP 565 (PLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus PROPRIETOR F.K. FOUNDRY LTD., SHAHDARA, LAHORE
| Citation | 1995 PLP 565 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus PROPRIETOR F.K. FOUNDRY LTD., SHAHDARA, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 565 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 565 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 565 (PLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus PROPRIETOR F.K. FOUNDRY LTD., SHAHDARA, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Appellant.
- H.R. Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37‑‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Grievance petition claiming amount due‑‑‑Labour Court accepting petition‑‑‑Petitioner again bringing complaint under S. 25‑A (8)‑‑‑Complaint disposed of with observations that respondent made payment of amount in presence of Court‑‑‑Appeal, held, not maintainable against such order of Labour Court passed on complaint. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969).‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 37‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Thirty days‑‑‑Appeal filed five months after impugned order of Labour Court‑‑‑No application for condonation of delay‑ Appeal dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969).‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 37‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Thirty days‑‑‑Appeal filed five months after impugned order of Labour Court‑‑‑No application for condonation of delay‑ Appeal dismissed as time‑barred. Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Appellant. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986. The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore vide Order dated 18‑2‑1986 directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,200 to the appellant as pay, gratuity and bonus etc. Thereafter, the appellant brought complaint under section 25‑A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which has been disposed of by the learned lower Court vide order dated 17‑6‑1986 with the observation that the respondent had paid Rs.2,200 to the appellant in the presence of the Court. The memo. of appeal does not show which order has been challenged in the appeal, nor any certified copy of the order has been brought on the record in spite of the direction given by this Court to the learned counsel for the appellant on the previous date. If the appeal is treated to have been preferred against the order dated 18‑2‑1986, then, the same is hopelessly time‑barred since the period of limitation is thirty days but the appeal was presented on 16‑7‑1986. If the appeal is treated to have been brought against the order dated 17‑6‑1986, then it is not maintainable because the amount directed by the learned lower Court to be paid to the appellant had been duly paid as is mentioned in the order dated 17‑6‑1986. The prayer in the appeal is that the respondent be directed to put back the appellant on duty and to pay him Rs.60,900 as back benefits for the period from 29‑12‑1977 to 17‑6‑1986. This prayer shows that the appellant is not feeling contented with the order dated 18‑2‑1986, whereby the respondent was directed to pay to the appellant an amount of Rs.2,
200. Since the appeal is time‑barred against the said order, it cannot be accepted. There is no application for condonation of delay.
2. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./252/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.