1993 PLP 933 (PLC)
CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, TOBA TEK SINGH Versus BARKAT MASIH
| Citation | 1993 PLP 933 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, TOBA TEK SINGH Versus BARKAT MASIH |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 933 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 933 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 933 (PLC) (CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, TOBA TEK SINGH Versus BARKAT MASIH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Farooq Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ashraf, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing 11th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.17‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Delay of 12 days‑‑‑No application for condonation presented‑‑‑Valuable right accrued to respondent by lapse of time cannot be disallowed without just cause‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal as time‑barred, in circumstances, held, was quite legal and equitable.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Farooq Ahmad for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing 11th December, 1985. The orders dated 25‑3‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad dismissing the appeals of the petitioner as time‑barred are reported to be wrong.
2. The petition made under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Authority was for the recovery of gratuity and un-availed leave. The petition was accepted by the learned Authority on 30‑5‑1984. Application for copy was filed on 12‑6‑1984. Copy was delivered on 25‑6‑1984. Appeals were lodged on 24‑7‑1984. Twelve days were lost beyond limitation inasmuch as petition for copy was made on 12‑6‑1984. No explanation was given for the delay, inasmuch as no application for condonation of delay was given. A valuable right had accrued to the respondents by lapse of time, which could not be disallowed to them without any just cause. The impugned orders, therefore, are quite legal and equitable and there is no scope to interfere with it in revisional jurisdiction.
3. As a result, both the revisions are dismissed. A.E./1519/Lb.P Revisions dismissed,