1995 PLP 169 (PLC)
Syed MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus PLASTICRAFTERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP 169 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus PLASTICRAFTERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 169 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 169 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 169 (PLC) (Syed MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus PLASTICRAFTERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Monirruddin Ahmed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Dismissal ‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Bar of limitation‑‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service was filed by employee after expiry of prescribed period‑‑‑Employee having failed to give cogent reason for such delay, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed by Court.
Judgment & Decree
Monirruddin Ahmed for Appellant. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1994. This appeal arises from the order of First Sindh Labour Court at Karachi dismissing the application of appellant worker filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 as time‑barred.
2. The appellant was working as a packer in the respondent‑Factory. He was charge‑sheeted for misconduct and dismissed from service on 14‑1‑1993. The appellant sent a grievance notice to the respondents on 16‑2‑1993 but received no reply. He then filed an application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before the First Sindh Labour Court on 9‑5‑1993. The Labour Court found that the appellant was quite fit to move about prior to the filing of the application and he got an affidavit sworn for filing in Court on 4‑5‑1993 but he filed the application on 9‑5‑1993. Even according to the Medical Certificate produced the applicant had been advised rest from 20‑4‑1993 to 6‑5‑1993 but the application was delayed by three days more and it was filed on 9‑5‑1993. This Medical Certificate was issued after the period of advised rest on 6‑5‑1993 advising rest from 20‑4‑1993 to 6‑5‑1993 on account of Enteric Fever and even during the period of rest the appellant could have forwarded his appeal through his representative to be filed before the Labour Court. He was not physically incapacitated from instructing his Representative or signing the petition. The application moved before the Labour Court for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was, therefore, rejected and the application was dismissed. It was expressed by the Labour Court that the appellant had not been able to satisfactorily explained each day's delay. The delay is admitted by the Representative for the appellant and no cogent reason is given for condoning even the last three days delay.
3. The order of the learned Labour Court appears to be reasonable under the circumstances of the case and I find no ground for interference.
4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2395/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.