1984 PLP 1270 (PLC(CS))
THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, FAISALABAD Versus NAZIR AHMAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1270 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, FAISALABAD Versus NAZIR AHMAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1270 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1270 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1984 PLP 1270 (PLC(CS)) (THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, FAISALABAD Versus NAZIR AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.
- Mahboob Alam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Thirty days‑impugned termination order without notice or knowledge to petitioner work man‑Representation submitted immediately after knowledge about termination order for reconsideration and for setting aside termina tion order‑Representation kept pending by employer‑Grievance notice served more than 30 days thereafter, in. circumstances, held, not time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Thirty days‑impugned termination order without notice or knowledge to petitioner work man‑Representation submitted immediately after knowledge about termination order for reconsideration and for setting aside termina tion order‑Representation kept pending by employer‑Grievance notice served more than 30 days thereafter, in. circumstances, held, not time‑barred. Qazi Muhammad Yasin for Appellant. Mahboob Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1984. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 3rd May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour ‑ Court No. 4, Faisalabad, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a mechanic. He was sanctioned leave for one year for the construction of his house. He availed of the leave with effect from 20th September, 1981. The order of granting leave was with drawn. His services were terminated on 26th October, 1981. When the appellant on 21st November, 1982 applied for further leave for two months on medical grounds he was informed that he had been terminated from service on 26th October, 1981.
3. The grievance petition was accepted ex parte and instead of applying for setting aside the ex parte decision under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C., the impugned order has been challenged on merits. The respon dent stated in his ex parte statement that he was verbally informed about the termination of his services and that neither any show‑cause notice was given nor enquiry was held before termination. The grievance notice, copy Exh. P‑3, was given on 30th March, 1983. Its postal receipt is Exh. P‑
4. Before this the respondent had on 21st November, 1982 applied for the reconsideration of his case and for setting aside the order of termina tion. The photo copy is Exh. P‑
1. It was ordered, vide order, dated 14th December, 1982, to be kept pending. So, the grievance notice, dated 30th March, 1983 is not time‑barred. As there is no material on the record to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the re‑instatement of the respondent is service.
4. As result, the appeal on account of having no substance is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.