1978 PLP 175 (PLC)
DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR
| Citation | 1978 PLP 175 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IInd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 175 (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 1978 PLP 175 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IInd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 175 (PLC) (DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Appellant
- Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Limitation‑Question‑Not applicable in case of void order‑ Permanent workmen's service terminated for reason of eczema disease on foot‑Disease neither contagious nor disqualifying him to perform duty‑Order, in circumstances, held, rightly act aside.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 20th November 1975, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court. Rawalpindi on a petition made to that Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, for re-instatement. Respondent is a permanent employee. His services were terminated for the reason that he has eczema on his foot. He does the job of Motor winding and that i9 done by him by hands. Eczema is not a contagious disease, and services of a permanent employee could not be dispensed with except after enquiry for a misconduct. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that petition was time barred. Respondent gave a grievance notice, which is on the file. It is dated 2nd September 1975. Grievance notice appears to have been typed o 20th August 1975. This date has been interpolated and it cannot be said If 20th August 1975 is taken to be a correct date the Moreover there is no limitation for void order. So impugned order is maintained and appeal is dismissed.