2001 PLP 1227 (SCMR)
PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others‑‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1227 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others‑‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1227 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1227 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1227 (SCMR) (PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others‑‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Mukhtar Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd August, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 10‑3‑2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No.84(K) (Corp.E) of 2000). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2‑A, 4 & 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), A .212(3)&‑Appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Abatement of proceedings‑‑‑Employee of statutory corporation was dismissed from service‑‑‑Constitutional petition against the judgments of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal was pending when the provisions of S.2‑A were added to Service Tribunals Act, 1973, resultantly the Constitutional petition stood abated‑‑ Formal order in the Constitutional petition was passed on 10‑2‑2000 by High Court‑‑‑Petitioner did not approach Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days, consequently, the appeal was dismissed by Service Tribunal as time‑barred‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where no sufficient explanation for condonation of delay was shown by the employee, no exception could be taken to finding of the Tribunal holding that the appeal was barred by time, considering that each day's delay was not accounted for‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Respondent No.4 in person.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 10‑3‑2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal at Karachi in Appeal No.84(K) (Corp. E/2000) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine on the ground that the same was barred by time.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4, Syed Umed Ali Shah, was employed by the petitioner as Security Guard and was dismissed, which action of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4 through a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Court, which petition was dismissed by the said Labour Court, consequently, said respondent preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed as per order, dated 30‑9‑1991, against which order the petitioner approached Sindh High Court in Constitutional Petition No.D‑1571 of 1991 for setting aside the order of respondent No.1, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which petition was disposed of as having abated on 10‑2‑2000 because of insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petitioner preferred the service appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was heard and disposed of as per impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4, who appeared in person, and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, respondent No.4 being an employee of the petitioner became civil servant because of insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, which provision was notified on 10‑6‑1997. In view of the said Notification Constitutional Petition No.D‑1571 of 1991 pending before Sindh High Court at Karachi abated. However, formal orders in the said Constitutional petition were passed on 10‑2‑2000 by the Sindh High Court petitioner did not approach 'the Federal Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days, consequently, the appeal was admittedly time‑barred. No sufficient explanation for condonation of delay was shown by the petitioner. No exception can be taken to the finding of the Tribunal holding that the appeal was barred by time, considering that each day's delay was not accounted for. We also, in the circumstances, find no merits in the petition, therefore, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑27/S Petition dismissed.