1993 PLP 739 (PLC)
and 3 others Versus GHULAM JILANI QAMAR
| Citation | 1993 PLP 739 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Wahid, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | and 3 others Versus GHULAM JILANI QAMAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 739 (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 1993 PLP 739 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Wahid, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 739 (PLC) (and 3 others Versus GHULAM JILANI QAMAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Saeed for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Appeal against decision of Labour Court which was to be filed within 30 days, was filed on 47th day after date on which certified copy of decision of Trial Court was delivered to appellants‑‑‑Reason furnished by appellant for such delay that he remained busy in policy meetings, was vague and flimsy‑‑‑In absence of valid ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal, appeal was dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 38‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Appeal against decision of Labour Court which was to be filed within 30 days, was filed on 47th day after date on which certified copy of decision of Trial Court was delivered to appellants‑‑‑Reason furnished by appellant for such delay that he remained busy in policy meetings, was vague and flimsy‑‑‑In absence of valid ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal, appeal was dismissed as barred by time. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed for Appellants. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1993. This is an appeal from the decision of Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad dated 11th of April, 1993 whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent assailing the validity of his continued suspension was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. The appeal is barred by time. The appellants applied for a certified copy of the impugned decision on 11‑4‑1993. The copy was delivered to them on 27th of April, 1993. The appeal was filed on 13th of June, 1993 i.e. on the 47th day after the date on which the certified copy of the impugned decision was delivered to the appellants. The appeal could be filed within 30 days. The appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay. The reason furnished in the application is that since appellant No. 1 remained busy in policy meetings at Islamabad and also holidays occurred on account of Eid‑ul -Azha, the appeal could not be filed within time. The reason that appellant No. l remained busy in policy meetings at Islamabad is vague and flimsy. No explanation has been offered qua the other appellants. The Eid‑ul‑Azha holidays for three days were not an unforeseen phenomenon and the same could be taken care of beforehand.
3. In the circumstances, I rind no valid ground for condonation of delay and dismiss this appeal in limine as barred by time. H.B.T./752/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.