1987 PLP 157 (PLC)
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PRIVATE) Ltd. Versus NISAR AHMED SHAH
| Citation | 1987 PLP 157 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PRIVATE) Ltd. Versus NISAR AHMED SHAH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 157 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 157 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind 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: 1987 PLP 157 (PLC) (PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PRIVATE) Ltd. Versus NISAR AHMED SHAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 Comments obtained from Labour Court on appeal of appellant belying his allegations‑‑Appeal clearly barred by time‑‑Application under section 5, Limitation Act, 1908, was also misconceived and in view of comments received from Labour Court, such application was not maintainable‑ Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Mahmood Iqbal for Appellant. Date of hearing: 27th February, 1986. The appeal is filed against an order of Sind Labour Court No. V , at Karachi. The appeal is time‑barred by a period of 9 months and 14 days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed.
2. In this case comments were called from the Labour Court. The Labour Court had dismissed the application of the restoration on 23‑5‑1985. 1The appellants in this case have made wild allegation that the Court below did not grant the copy of the original order of the dismissal of the application. Comments were called for by this Tribunal from the Labour Court which belied the allegations. This appeal is filed after 9 months and 14 days and is clearly time‑barred, therefore, it cannot be entertained.
4. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is also misconceived and in view of the comments received from the Labour B Court, this application is also not maintainable. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.