1992 PLP 698 (PLC(CS))
Hafiz ABDUL HADI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI CITY
| Citation | 1992 PLP 698 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Hafiz ABDUL HADI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI CITY |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 698 (PLC(CS))?
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 698 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 698 (PLC(CS)) (Hafiz ABDUL HADI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI CITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Hassan Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Grievance petition of appellant was rejected on ground of limitation
Cause of action accrued to appellant ten years ago and grievance notice as well as grievance petition filed after ten years were time-barred
Mandatory provision of limitation having not been complied with, appeal was dismissed by Labour Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
MA. Hassan Malik for Appellant. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991. DECISION This is an appeal against the order dated 27-2-1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No.V, at Karachi whereby he rejected the grievance application of the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
2. I have beard Mr. MA. Hassan Malik for the appellant and have also gone through the relevant papers produced by Mr. Malik alongwith this appeal.
3. It appears that the case of the appellant is that he was transferred to Karachi Division of Pakistan Railways where he reported for duty on 1-10-1980, but was not allowed to resume duty. The papers produced by him show that on 7-1-1981 he moved application to the Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Karachi for an order to take him back on duty. Similar application was submitted on 28-3-1986 and finally on 29-9-1990. He thereafter sent his grievance notice on 29-9-1990 and filed grievance petition on 11-10-1990.
4. The cause of action, if any, had accrued to the appellant on 1-10-1980. Obviously the grievance notice after 10 years and grievance application thereafter is time-barred. However Mr. Malik contends that as no order in writing was passed for removing him from service, therefore the period of limitation would not run against him. In his support he has relied upon decision of this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Razzak v. Executive Engineer 1990 PLC
275. Neither in the grievance application nor in grievance notice it is alleged that he had been removed from service, as such the question of passing an order of removal does not arise. Even on his own showing, he was ordered to be posted at Karachi. As such that order gave him cause of action, which accrued to him on 1-10-1980 and if he had any grievance he should have sent grievance notice within the time limit prescribed under section 25-A of IRO, 1969. He cannot seek relief under section 25-A while not complying with the mandatory provisions of said section with regard to limitation. The facts of the reported case are altogether different from this case and I need not discuss that case. The grievance application is rightly held by the learned Presiding Officer to be time-barred. I see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. M.Y.H/1896/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.