1992 PLP 538 (PLC)
ABDUL HAKIM Versus Messrs ABDUL RAHMAN, CONTRACTOR, ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES
| Citation | 1992 PLP 538 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL HAKIM Versus Messrs ABDUL RAHMAN, CONTRACTOR, ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES |
| Primary Law | (b) Delay, (a) Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 538 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Delay, (a) Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 538 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 538 (PLC) (ABDUL HAKIM Versus Messrs ABDUL RAHMAN, CONTRACTOR, ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood Habibullah for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Wrong advice tendered to employee, would not be a ground to extend period of limitation in filing appeal.
Wrong advice would not be a ground to extend period of limitation.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Delay
Wrong advice would not be a ground to extend period of limitation. Mahmood Habibullah for Appellant. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1992. The appellant and some other workers also had filed grievance petitions against Abdullah Industries and had impleaded the present respondent also therein. The Labour Court had dismissed that grievance petition on the ground that no grievance notice had been given to the present respondent at all but only to M/s. Abdullah Industries who was not their employer. The petition had been dismissed by order, dated 2nd July, 1991. It was thereafter that the fresh grievance procedure was adopted by the appellant and the other workers which was later on followed by grievance application before the learned Labour Court.
2. Wrong advice tendered to the appellant would not be a ground to extend the period of limitation. Under the circumstances the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the petition and no interference is called for. I will therefore dismiss the appeal summarily. H.B.T./2015/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.