1995 PLP 334 (PLC)
POSTMASTER GENERAL SINDH, HYDERABAD Versus ILLAHI BUX CHANDIO
| Citation | 1995 PLP 334 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Ali U. Quraishi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | POSTMASTER GENERAL SINDH, HYDERABAD Versus ILLAHI BUX CHANDIO |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 334 (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 1995 PLP 334 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmad Ali U. Quraishi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 334 (PLC) (POSTMASTER GENERAL SINDH, HYDERABAD Versus ILLAHI BUX CHANDIO). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellant,
- Manzar Alam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1989.
- ‑‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 37‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Appeal filed by appellant not signed by or presented by himself but someone else who was not an aggrieved party‑‑ Appeal, held, was not, properly presented and therefore not maintainable‑‑ Appeal, must be presented by an aggrieved person himself and if presented by an Advocate, agent, Authorised Officer or person, attorney or representative would not be maintainable.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Manzar Alam, learned counsel for the respondent.
- 4. The grievance petition was filed against Postmaster General, Sindh, and Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices, Sukkur Division, Sukkur. Admittedly the order of appointment of respondent was issued by the Superintendent, Post Offices, Sukkur after approval by the Postmaster General. The persons aggrieved by the impugned order were Postmaster General or the Superintendent of Post Offices who will both be considered as employers. The memo of appeal has not been signed by any of them. Under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969 the right to file the appeal has been conferred upon the party aggrieved by the award or order. The Assistant Postmaster General (investigation), Sindh, who has signed the appeal was not a party to the grievance petition and cannot be considered as an aggrieved person. Mr. Manzar Alam has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the' cases of Director, Medical Services, KMC and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 175, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union 1989 PLC 176 and Sijawa Khan v. M/s. Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 PLC 262. In all the three cases this Tribunal has held that appeal must be presented by the aggrieved person himself and appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/Person, Attorney or Representative was not maintainable. In view of this legal position the appeal is not maintainable.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 37‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Appeal filed by appellant not signed by or presented by himself but someone else who was not an aggrieved party‑‑ Appeal, held, was not, properly presented and therefore not maintainable‑‑ Appeal, must be presented by an aggrieved person himself and if presented by an Advocate, agent, Authorised Officer or person, attorney or representative would not be maintainable. Director Medical Service, KMC and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 175; Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees Union 1989 PLC 176 and Sijawa Khan v. M/s. Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) LTD. 1989 PLC 262 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Manzar Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th November, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 15‑8‑1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Manzar Alam, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Mr. Manzar Alam has taken plea that the appeal has not been properly presented. He pointed out that the memo. of appeal has been signed for, and on behalf of appellant and made by the appellant himself and has been presented by one Syed Muhammad Fazil, Assistant Postmaster General (investigation) are also signed the Memo. of Appeal.
4. The grievance petition was filed against Postmaster General, Sindh, and Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices, Sukkur Division, Sukkur. Admittedly the order of appointment of respondent was issued by the Superintendent, Post Offices, Sukkur after approval by the Postmaster General. The persons aggrieved by the impugned order were Postmaster General or the Superintendent of Post Offices who will both be considered as employers. The memo of appeal has not been signed by any of them. Under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969 the right to file the appeal has been conferred upon the party aggrieved by the award or order. The Assistant Postmaster General (investigation), Sindh, who has signed the appeal was not a party to the grievance petition and cannot be considered as an aggrieved person. Mr. Manzar Alam has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the' cases of Director, Medical Services, KMC and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 175, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union 1989 PLC 176 and Sijawa Khan v. M/s. Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 PLC
262. In all the three cases this Tribunal has held that appeal must be presented by the aggrieved person himself and appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/Person, Attorney or Representative was not maintainable. In view of this legal position the appeal is not maintainable.
5. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the respondent was Civil Servant and, therefore,, grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable. Other point cannot be considered by this Tribunal in appeal which is not maintainable.
6. The appeal is dismissed. M.Y.H./1602/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.