1991 PLP 717 (PLC(CS))
KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION Versus MUMTAZ AHMAD
| Citation | 1991 PLP 717 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION Versus MUMTAZ AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 717 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 717 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 717 (PLC(CS)) (KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION Versus MUMTAZ AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Races Ahmed for Appellants.
- Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1990
- 3. The learned counsel of KMC remained absent on the last date of hearing as well as today upto 10‑50 a.m. Raees Ahmed, Clerk who is present in the Court admitted that he has no authority. This Tribunal has time and again been holding that appeal has to be presented by the aggrieved party and not by an Advocate or Agent on his behalf. Reference may be made to decisions of this Tribunal in the cases reported in 1989 PLC 175, 1989 P L C 176 and 1989 P L C 262 and also unreported decisions in Appeal No. SUK‑265 of 1989, SUK‑266 of 1989 and KAR‑43 of 1990. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naeem Iqbal Khan v. Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratory and A others 1988 S C M R 1089 wherein their Lordships upheld the order of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal of the respondent on the ground that it was not presented by duly authorised person.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑‑Appeal not presented by aggrieved or duly authorised person was not maintainable. 1989 P L C 175;1989 P L C 176; 1989 P L C 262 and Naeem Iqbal Khan v. Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratory and others 1988 S C M R 1089 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondent Date of hearing: 4th September, 1990 This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. I at Karachi dated 25‑4‑1989, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent, that appeal has not been filed by an authorised person. It may be pointed out that the grievance petition was filed against KMC through Director, Medical Services however the appeal has been filed by the KMC through Director Administration. The impugned order which was challenged in the grievance petition was passed by Deputy Director, Medical Services. The appeal was presented by Raees Ahmed, Clerk of Legal Department, KMC.
3. The learned counsel of KMC remained absent on the last date of hearing as well as today upto 10‑50 a.m. Raees Ahmed, Clerk who is present in the Court admitted that he has no authority. This Tribunal has time and again been holding that appeal has to be presented by the aggrieved party and not by an Advocate or Agent on his behalf. Reference may be made to decisions of this Tribunal in the cases reported in 1989 PLC 175, 1989 P L C 176 and 1989 P L C 262 and also unreported decisions in Appeal No. SUK‑265 of 1989, SUK‑266 of 1989 and KAR‑43 of 1990. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naeem Iqbal Khan v. Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratory and A others 1988 S C M R 1089 wherein their Lordships upheld the order of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal of the respondent on the ground that it was not presented by duly authorised person.
4. It may also be pointed out, as stated by Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the respondent filed a complaint under subsection (8) of section 25‑A against the Director Medical Services before the learned Labour Court where the matter was compromised. He has produced `Application for withdrawal of complaint' which shows that the respondent in that case viz. appellant had compromised the matter and made full payment of back benefits therefore had withdrawn the complaint.
5. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable because IE it is not presented by aggrieved person. M.Y.H./1750/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.