1993 PLP 820 (PLC(CS))
KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs DELTA ARK SERVICES, KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 820 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs DELTA ARK SERVICES, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 820 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 820 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 820 (PLC(CS)) (KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus Messrs DELTA ARK SERVICES, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- 5. I have heard Mr. S.M, Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and have also perused the record and proceeding of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant had filed his grievance petition belatedly and that the appellant could neither satisfactorily prove the reason for filing his grievance petition after expiry of the mandatory period of Limitation, nor he made a reasonable request to condone the delay explaining each day's delay. It is a settled law is no defence and there is also a maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. In view of these legal grounds learned Advocate for the appellant has no legs to stand in support of his case and that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and it needs not to be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 25‑8‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman in the respondent establishment and on 1‑4‑1987, his services were wrongly terminated, therefore, he sent his grievance notice on 5‑4‑1987 and till the date of filing his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Court, he did not receive reply to the said notice.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition mainly on the legal objection that as the appellant had filed belated grievance petition, therefore, it be dismissed as time‑barred.
4. After hearing both the parties on this legal objection, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.M, Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and have also perused the record and proceeding of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant had filed his grievance petition belatedly and that the appellant could neither satisfactorily prove the reason for filing his grievance petition after expiry of the mandatory period of Limitation, nor he made a reasonable request to condone the delay explaining each day's delay. It is a settled law is no defence and there is also a maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. In view of these legal grounds learned Advocate for the appellant has no legs to stand in support of his case and that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and it needs not to be interfered with.
6. For the reason discussed by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is; therefore, dismissed in limine. A.E./1150/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.