1986 PLP 187 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 187 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 187 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 187 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 187 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37(3)‑‑Rejection of application for restoration of grievance petition dismissed in default‑‑Not appealable. 1981 ‑f' L C 304 rel. Abdul Monem Khan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985. This appeal is filed against the order of Sind Labour Court No. 1V, Karachi, who by his order, dated 16‑3‑1985, rejected the application of restoration.
2. The fact is that on 3‑2‑1985, appellant/applicant was not present in the Labour Court and his application under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 was dismissed. Another application for restoration was given in which it was stated that he was ill and the medical certificate was furnished. It is contended in the reply statement before the Labour Court that the medical certificate is a false certificate and the appellant/ applicant is residing in Mahmoodabad but the medical certificate is of a doctor whose clinic is in Haji Camp.
3. In the medical certificate the ailment from which the appellant/ applicant was suffering was not given. Whether the ailment was such which disabled the movement of the appellant or he could not make an application for adjournment through somebody else. The medical certificate was disbelieved by the learned Labour Court. He, therefore, dismissed application for restoration. The medical certificate which is Exh.3‑A from Doctor G. Abbasi is also shown to me in which the name of disease is shown as P.U.0. The learned representative for the appellant was not able to decipher the sickness showing by words P.U.O. Besides this, the certificate is issued after the ailment was over and he was fit enough to join the duties. This certificate is not dependable and the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected it.
4. The point is whether an appeal under section 37(3), I.R.O., 1969, could be filed. Section 37(3) is as under:‑ "Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) or a decision given under section 25‑A or section 34 or a sentence passed under clause (c) of subsection (5) of section 35 ....may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the delivery or passing thereof and the decision of the Tribunal is such appeal shall be final."
5. The word 'decision' is interpreted to be the decision whether accepting the petition under section 25‑A or rejecting it, where the merits of the petition itself are considered. In any view no appeal could be filed under section 37(3), I.R.O., 1969, with regard to rejecting the application for restoration. In this respect, reliance is also placed on 1981 P L C