1989 PLP 686 (PLC(CS))
DILDAR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 686 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | DILDAR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 686 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 686 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 686 (PLC(CS)) (DILDAR HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Appellant.
- Haji Khalil ur Rehman for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 34 & 38(3)‑‑Petition under S.34‑‑No limitation fixed‑‑Labour Court declaring such petition as time‑barred as if it was a petition under S.25‑A‑ Decision of Labour Court was set aside and case remanded by Appellate Tribunal to Labour Court for redecision after giving opportunity of evidence to parties.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 34 & 38(3)‑‑Petition under S.34‑‑No limitation fixed‑‑Labour Court declaring such petition as time‑barred as if it was a petition under S.25‑A‑ Decision of Labour Court was set aside and case remanded by Appellate Tribunal to Labour Court for redecision after giving opportunity of evidence to parties. Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Appellant. Haji Khalil ur Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th December, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 31‑7‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No‑4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been declared as time‑barred. On merits, no doubt, the learned lower Court says that the appellant no case but the evidence has not been discussed. The observation is not raradictory as well. It is observed, Even otherwise there is not an iota and scintalla of evidence to lend support to the petitioner's case which stands fully rebutted by the data and material available on the record." If there was no evidence, how it could stand rebutted by the material available on the file? It shows that the learned lower Court has not properly scrutinized the case. It has also not been explained how the appellant was duly heard before penalized for the commission of the alleged irregularities.
2. The grievance petition made by the appellant was not under section 25‑A but under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for which no period of limitation is fixed. The petition, therefore, could not be declared as time‑barred.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision. The parties will be at liberty to produce any more evidence in support of their contentions if they so liked. A.E./619/Lb.P Appeal accepted.