1986 PLP 429 (PLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus Messrs AL‑GHAZI TRACTORS Ltd.
| Citation | 1986 PLP 429 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal. |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus Messrs AL‑GHAZI TRACTORS Ltd. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 429 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 429 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 429 (PLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus Messrs AL‑GHAZI TRACTORS Ltd.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Zulqarnain for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Presented by counsel‑‑Improper presentation‑‑Petitioner appearing personally after expiry of limitation period‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected for improper presentation‑‑Plea that petitioner was present but Labour Court missed to record his presence‑‑Not raised before Labour Court‑‑Rejected at appeal stage.
Judgment & Decree
The order, dated 3‑8‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected for improper presentation.
2. The grievance petition was presented by the learned counsel for the appellant on 10‑6‑1984. The case was adjourned to 21‑7‑1984, 22‑7‑1984, 24‑9‑1984 and 11‑10‑1984. Before 11‑10‑1984 the appellant never appeared in person and everytime his counsel had been appearing. For the first time the appellant appeared in person on 11‑10‑1984. It would be deemed that the grievance petition was presented on 11‑10‑1984. But by that time the period of limitation for the institution of the grievance petition had expired. Grievance notice is, dated 20‑5‑1984. Period for the presentation of the grievance petition expired on 4‑8‑1984. Since within limitation the grievance petition was not properly presented it was rightly rejected. The appellant was given opportunity to reply to the miscellaneous application of the respondent wherein the latter had asked the Court to reject the grievance petition on the ground of improper presentation but no reply was filed. Request was made for adjournment for filing reply but was rejected.
3. It has been argued that the appellant was present on 10‑6‑1984 when the grievance petition was presented but the Court missed to record his presence. No such objection was raised before the learned lower Court so now it is too late to say so. If reply to the miscellaneous application of the respondent had been filed and such an objection had been taken, the learned lower Court may have given the appellant an opportunity to prove the contention but no such plea was raised.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.