1981 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))
KARACHI Versus MRS. NASIM SADDIQ
| Citation | 1981 PLP 653 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KARACHI Versus MRS. NASIM SADDIQ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 653 (PLC(CS)) (KARACHI Versus MRS. NASIM SADDIQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Application No. KAR‑106 of 1981, heard on 9th March, 1981. ‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition ‑‑Pendency of appeal before Depart mental Authority‑No bar to maintainability of grievance peti tion‑Railway employee‑Claim for dues and emoluments -Departmental appeal lying undisposed for about a year‑Conten tion that pending disposal of departmental appeal petition before Labour Court was not maintainable rejected‑Petition, held, not barred due to pendency of departmental appeal and delay in disposal of appeal by competent authority deprecated by Labour Appellate Tribunal on review application by Railway Authorities under S. 38 (3‑a)‑Review‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a) S. M. A. Alvi for Applicant. Date of hearing : 9th March, 1981. This purports to be information laid under subsection (3‑a) of sec tion 38,
1. R. O. in respect of an order made by the learned Fifth Lab our Court on 17th January, 1980 in Application No. 119 of 1980 filed by one Mrs. Nasim Saddiq against the Pakistan Railways. That application was for the payment to her of the dues and emoluments to which she was entitled as Matron. The maintainability of the application was resisted by the Pakistan Railways inter alia on the grounds, firstly, that neither the provisions of the I. R. O. nor the Standing Orders are applicable to employees of hospitals run by the Railway, and secondly, that the applicant had not exhausted her remedy by way of appeal to the Depart ment or authorities and hence the grievance petition by the applicant was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court has rejected both these preliminary legal objections raised by the Pakistan Railways and has directed that the application of Mrs. Nasim Saddiq be heard on merits.
2. Now as regards the first preliminary legal objection raised by the Pakistan Railways, it may be pointed out that the grievance peti tion of Mrs. Nasim Saddiq falls to be considered under section 25‑A, I. R.O and not Standing Orders. As such it has to be considered whether the provisions of I. R. O. are applicable to the Railway Hospital in which Mrs. Nasim Saddiq is employed and also to her. Mr. S. M. A. Alvi, the learned counsel for the Pakistan Railways, submitted that the provisions of the I. R. O. have been made inapplicable to establishments maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons by Ordinance XXI of 1979. The said Ordinance. however, came into force on 5th April, 1979. Moreover the provisions of the said Ordinance are prospective and not retrospective. On the other hand the claim of Mrs. Nasim Saddiq is for wages with effect from March, 1979 i.e. before the promulgation of the Industrial Rela tions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 (Ordinance XXI of 1979). As regards the second contention raised by the Pakistan Railways, namely that the applicant, Mrs. Nasim Saddiq, had not exhausted her right of appeal, it may be mentioned that she had in fact filed an appeal. The exact date of filing of the appeal is not known but it would appear from the letter, dated 4th May, 1980, written by the Railway Administ ration to Mrs. Nasim Saddiq informing her that her appeal was still pending, that it was filed at least one year back. It is most , regrettable that such simple departmental appeal has not been decided by the Member (Traffic) Railway Board uptil now. It is these depart mental delays which are responsible not only for frustration among the officials but also for unnecessary litigation in Courts. It is hoped that the Member (Traffic) will take urgent steps for disposing of he appeal. In any case, the pendency of appeal with the Department would not debar the entertainment of the grievance petition made by A Mrs. Nasim Saddiq as the disposal of departmental appeal is not a pre‑condition to the filing of the grievance petition under section 25‑A.
4. For. the reasons discussed by me above, I find no ground for interfering, in exercise of the suo motu revisional powers of this Tribunal, with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court.