1978 PLP 114 (PLC)
ZAINUL ABEDIN Versus MESSRS SABINA LTD. PARIS SILK MILLS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1978 PLP 114 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZAINUL ABEDIN Versus MESSRS SABINA LTD. PARIS SILK MILLS, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 114 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 114 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 114 (PLC) (ZAINUL ABEDIN Versus MESSRS SABINA LTD. PARIS SILK MILLS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Hasan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Plea neither raised in grievance notice nor in application under S. 25‑A nor in written arguments before Labour Court‑Carnet be taken into consideration for first time by Tribunal. All Amjad for Appellant Ghulam Hasan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th April 1977. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dis missing the application of the appellant filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent. According to the respondent, he tendered his resignation, which was accepted. This was disputed by the appellant and he pleaded that his resignation was obtained under coercion and, therefore, sought for re‑instatement. He approached the Labour Court after service of the grievance notice. Evidence, was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two grounds before me. The first ground taken by him was that the resignation was obtained A under coercion. I find no force in this contention. The learned counsel has not succeeded in convincing me and that there was any truth in the allegation. As the record shows, initially he had pleaded that his signature was obtained on a blank paper. So according to this it was a case of deception rather than coercion. Subsequently, he improved upon this and attempted to plead that his signature was taken under threat. His evidence was rightly rejected by the Labour Court.
4. The second ground which was taken is that the acceptance of the resignation was never communicated to the appellant. This contention is equally devoid of any force. No such ground was pleaded either in the B grievance notice or in the application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O., or even in the written arguments, which were presented in the Labour Court. I am not inclined to take into consideration the plea, which has been raised for the first time before me.