1974 PLP 254 (PLC)
MESSRS LODHI INDUSTRIES LTD Appellant Versus WORKERS' UNION AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1974 PLP 254 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS LODHI INDUSTRIES LTD Appellant Versus WORKERS' UNION AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1974 PLP 254 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1974 PLP 254 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1974 PLP 254 (PLC) (MESSRS LODHI INDUSTRIES LTD Appellant Versus WORKERS' UNION AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ------S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay ‑ Appellant contending that due to illness he had no knowledge of award appealed against‑Receipt of copy of award by Advocate of appellant well in time admitted‑No explanation as to why appellant not informed of award by his Advocate‑Application for condonation, in circum stances, rejected.
- S. P. Lodhi for Respondent No. 1.
- This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1 Karachi dated March 6, 1973. The appeal has been filed on 12th June 1973. It is, on the face of it, much beyond time for filing an appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been made supported by an affidavit of Mr. Mukhtar Lodhi. Mr. Mukhtar Lodhi has stated in paragraph 2, of his affidavit that his Advocate got the copy of the award on 12th March 1973. It is stated in paragraph 3. of the affidavit as under:
- 2. On the grounds stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned Represen tative for the respondent, has filed a counter‑affidavit. It is clear from the counter‑affidavit that the respondent had served a copy of the award on Mr. Rifaqat Lodhi a Director of the factory on 12th March 1973, at 3 p.m. A photostat copy of the award, which bears the signature of Mr. Rifaqat Lodhi, has been filed. It .is, therefore, very clear that the Management knew about the existence of the award on the 12th of March 1973, Mr. Mukhtar Lodhi has, on the face of it, given a false affidavit, stating that he did not know about the award. Moreover, there is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why his Advocate did not inform him when he received the copy of the award on 12th March 1973. In these circumstances, I do not see any ground to condone the delay. The appeal is dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay ‑ Appellant contending that due to illness he had no knowledge of award appealed against‑Receipt of copy of award by Advocate of appellant well in time admitted‑No explanation as to why appellant not informed of award by his Advocate‑Application for condonation, in circum stances, rejected. S. S. Jehangir Khan for Appellant S. P. Lodhi for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 5th July 1973. This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1 Karachi dated March 6, 1973. The appeal has been filed on 12th June 1973. It is, on the face of it, much beyond time for filing an appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been made supported by an affidavit of Mr. Mukhtar Lodhi. Mr. Mukhtar Lodhi has stated in paragraph 2, of his affidavit that his Advocate got the copy of the award on 12th March 1973. It is stated in paragraph 3. of the affidavit as under: "That I say that I was totally not aware of the award given by the Hon'ble Sind Labour Court No. 1, as 1 was under medical care, due to high blood pressure. That I further say that I was neither informed by my counsel." 2. On the grounds stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned Represen tative for the respondent, has filed a counter‑affidavit. It is clear from the counter‑affidavit that the respondent had served a copy of the award on Mr. Rifaqat Lodhi a Director of the factory on 12th March 1973, at 3 p.m. A photostat copy of the award, which bears the signature of Mr. Rifaqat Lodhi, has been filed. It .is, therefore, very clear that the Management knew about the existence of the award on the 12th of March 1973, Mr. Mukhtar Lodhi has, on the face of it, given a false affidavit, stating that he did not know about the award. Moreover, there is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why his Advocate did not inform him when he received the copy of the award on 12th March 1973. In these circumstances, I do not see any ground to condone the delay. The appeal is dismissed as time‑barred.