1987 PLP 293 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus INDUS TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1987 PLP 293 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | VIth Labour Court Sind |
| Bench Members | S. Nasir Hussain Jafri, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus INDUS TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 293 (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 1987 PLP 293 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the VIth Labour Court Sind bench comprising: S. Nasir Hussain Jafri, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 293 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus INDUS TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Ghani Khan for Respondent.
- ‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Limitation I Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑ ‑Condonation of delay‑‑Wrong advice given by an Advocate, held, would never be a ground for condonation of delay as right acquired by one person could not be destroyed or taken away by mistake of the other side‑‑Petitioner's suits seeking redress of his grievance over termination of service dismissed in July and November, 1985 and grievance petition filed by him on 13‑1‑1986‑‑Time wasted after dismissal of suits not explained to the satisfaction of Court‑‑Petition, held, without any substance and dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred.
- Mr. Bashir, submits that the applicant was ill advised by the Advocate and so he wrongly approached to the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. The civil 'Court however, dismissed his suit on 30‑7‑1985 and 29‑11‑1985. The papers were then handed‑over to the applicant by his Advocate on 5‑1‑1986. Accordingly, the time spent by the applicant in a wrong forum is to be excluded for computing the limitation. The plea of the respondent however, is that this period cannot be excluded under any law.
- A wrong advise given by an Advocate would never be a ground for condonation of delay as the right acquired by one person cannot be destroyed or taken away by the mistakes etc. of the other side. Moreover, in this case the applicant has not explained each day of delay. Even if the period spent in a wrong forum is to be excluded because of the ill‑advice, the sits were said to have been dismissed in July and November, 1985 whereas this petition has been filed on 13‑1‑1986. The time wasted after his dismissal of his suits has also not been explained to the satisfaction of this Court. It is also not mentioned when the suits were actually filed to see whether the applicant did not waste any time in filing the suit. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Limitation I Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑ ‑Condonation of delay‑‑Wrong advice given by an Advocate, held, would never be a ground for condonation of delay as right acquired by one person could not be destroyed or taken away by mistake of the other side‑‑Petitioner's suits seeking redress of his grievance over termination of service dismissed in July and November, 1985 and grievance petition filed by him on 13‑1‑1986‑‑Time wasted after dismissal of suits not explained to the satisfaction of Court‑‑Petition, held, without any substance and dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred. Bashir Ahmed for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ -- ‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Limitation I Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑ ‑Condonation of delay‑‑Wrong advice given by an Advocate, held, would never be a ground for condonation of delay as right acquired by one person could not be destroyed or taken away by mistake of the other side‑‑Petitioner's suits seeking redress of his grievance over termination of service dismissed in July and November, 1985 and grievance petition filed by him on 13‑1‑1986‑‑Time wasted after dismissal of suits not explained to the satisfaction of Court‑‑Petition, held, without any substance and dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred. Bashir Ahmed for Applicant. A. Ghani Khan for Respondent. The applicant was said to have been terminated by letter, dated 16‑10‑1984. However, this was withdrawn by letter, dated 12‑11‑1984 but again he was terminated on 29‑11‑1984. Grievance notice was therefore, issued by him on 15‑11‑1984. This petition was however, instituted on 13‑1‑1986 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. I have accordingly heard Mr. Bashir Ahmed, Representative for the applicant, and Mr. A. Ghani Khan counsel for the respondent. Mr. Bashir, submits that the applicant was ill advised by the Advocate and so he wrongly approached to the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. The civil 'Court however, dismissed his suit on 30‑7‑1985 and 29‑11‑1985. The papers were then handed‑over to the applicant by his Advocate on 5‑1‑1986. Accordingly, the time spent by the applicant in a wrong forum is to be excluded for computing the limitation. The plea of the respondent however, is that this period cannot be excluded under any law. A wrong advise given by an Advocate would never be a ground for condonation of delay as the right acquired by one person cannot be destroyed or taken away by the mistakes etc. of the other side. Moreover, in this case the applicant has not explained each day of delay. Even if the period spent in a wrong forum is to be excluded because of the ill‑advice, the sits were said to have been dismissed in July and November, 1985 whereas this petition has been filed on 13‑1‑1986. The time wasted after his dismissal of his suits has also not been explained to the satisfaction of this Court. It is also not mentioned when the suits were actually filed to see whether the applicant did not waste any time in filing the suit. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred. S. Q. / 873/ Lb Petition 4iemissed