1988 PLP 257 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SALIM Versus HABIB BANK Ltd. and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 257 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALIM Versus HABIB BANK Ltd. and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 257 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 257 (PLC)?
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: 1988 PLP 257 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SALIM Versus HABIB BANK Ltd. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qamar Riaz Hussain for Appellant.
- Mian Abdul Rashid for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Appeal hopelessly time‑barred‑‑No explanation given for delay‑‑A valuable right accruing to respondent by lapse of time‑‑Appeal dismissed as time‑barred. 1985 PLC 1053 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Qamar Riaz Hussain for Appellant. Mian Abdul Rashid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 30‑3‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3 Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition has been directed to be returned to him following 1985 P L C 1053 holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction.
2. The appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. The date of the impugned order is 30‑3‑1986. The appellant challenged the order firstly in writ petition which was withdrawn on 30‑11‑1986. The date of institution of the writ however is not known. Even if the period of limitation is computed from 30‑11‑1986 when the writ was withdrawn the appeal could have been preferred up to 10‑1‑1987 when this Tribunal opened after winter vacation and since it was brought on 29‑1‑1987,, it is time‑barred. In the application for condonation of delay no explanation is given for the delay from 10‑1‑1987 to 28‑1‑1987. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since this Court‑has power to condone the delay, the delay can be condoned. The question is not of jurisdiction of this Court to condone the delay but the question is whether there are reasonable grounds for the same. A valuable right has accrued, to the respondent by lapse of time which cannot be defeated without any reason. . As a result the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred. M.Y.H./320/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.