2008 PLP 1 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (O.P.S.), HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and others
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (O.P.S.), HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1 (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 2008 PLP 1 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (O.P.S.), HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mukhtar Ahmed Malik for Appellant.
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 37
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.12
Services of appellant working as driver in House Building Finance Corporation were terminated and his departmental appeal was dismissed with the direction that he being a workman, should approach the Labour Court
Appellant served a grievance notice and thereafter within two months filed grievance petition, which was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that it was barred by 28 days as appellant should have immediately come to the Labour Court
Said order of the Labour Court was erroneous on the face of it, because even if appellant did not approach the Labour Court, yet he had served the grievance notice and thereafter filed grievance petition within two months
Appellant had to comply with the statutory provisions
Time spent in that regard could not render his grievance petition barred by time
Impugned order, in circumstances was illegal
Said order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, with the direction to decide the case on merits.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant was employed as driver in the Housing Building Finance Corporation; his services were terminated vide order, dated 15-2-1999; he filed a departmental appeal on 22-2-1999, whereafter he approached the Federal Service Tribunal on 16-6-1999, but his appeal was dismissed on 10-4-2000, with the direction that he being a workman should approach the Labour Court; the appellant obtained the copy of the above order on 11-4-2000 and served a grievance notice on 12-4-2000 and thereafter within two months filed the grievance petition on 8-5-2000, which has been dismissed by the Labour Court, vide order, dated 27-6-2002, on the ground that it is barred by 28 days, as the appellant should have immediately come to the Labour Court.
2. Heard. The order of the Labour Court on the face of it is erroneous, because even if the appellant did not approach the Labour Court, yet he served the grievance notice and thereafter filed the grievance petition within two months; obviously, he had to comply with the statutory provisions, therefore, the time spent in this regard cannot render the petition barred by time. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal, which is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, with the direction to decide the case on merits. The appeal is accordingly allowed. H.B.T./M-502/L Order accordingl