1992 PLP 103 (PLC)
QALANDER KHAN Versus Messrs SAOIT INDUSTRIES (WEAVING DEPARTMENT), KARACHI
| Citation | 1992 PLP 103 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | QALANDER KHAN Versus Messrs SAOIT INDUSTRIES (WEAVING DEPARTMENT), KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 103 (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 1992 PLP 103 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 103 (PLC) (QALANDER KHAN Versus Messrs SAOIT INDUSTRIES (WEAVING DEPARTMENT), KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Maarif, Representative for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 65-B
Application for restoration of dismissed grievance petition
Workman who moved application for restoration of grievance petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution, beyond prescribed period of one month from its dismissal, failed to explain delay of each day
Restoration application of workman was rightly rejected by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th May, 1991. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. II at Karachi, dated 31-1-1991; whereby the restoration application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Labour Court as time-barred. 2. 1 have heard Mr. Choudhry Maarif, learned representative for the appellant and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed his grievance application in the Labour Court on 20-3-1989. It was fixed for his affidavit-in -evidence and several dates of hearing were given for the said purpose, but the appellant did not appear before the learned Labour Court. On 30-10-1989, his representative Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed made an application praying that the application of the appellant be dismissed as the appellant had failed to contact him and was no more interested in the Application. The learned Labour Court, however, adjourned the hearing of the Application to 22-11-1989; but, on that date also the appellant and his representative remained absent, therefore, the application was dismissed in default.
4. On 17-1-1990, the appellant appeared in the Labour Court and moved an application for restoration of his dismissed grievance application. He produced Medical Certificate to the effect that he remained under treatment with effect from 20-9-1989 to 30-12-1989.
5. Under section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 have been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires the applicant to explain the delay of each day. Even, if the Medical Certificate produced by the appellant is accepted; still it at the most gives explanation of failure of the applicant to file restoration application upto 30-12-1989. The restoration application had to be filed within one month viz., upto 23-12-1989. The learned Labour Court, therefore, had rightly held that there was no explanation of each day's delay after 30-10-1989 to 17-1-1990 when restoration application had been filed. Under the circumstances, the restoration application was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./1946/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.