1991 PLP 917 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN GUM INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus SAIFULLAH
| Citation | 1991 PLP 917 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN GUM INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus SAIFULLAH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 917 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 917 (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 917 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN GUM INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus SAIFULLAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Ahmed Khan, Representative for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Preliminary legal objection was raised on behalf of employer that grievance petition was not maintainable as same was not presented by workman himself‑‑‑Workman on the other hand had filed affidavit that he was present at the time of filing petition‑‑‑When a legal objection required recording of evidence, generally, it was to be decided at time of final decision after evidence of both parties was recorded‑‑‑Labour Court even otherwise could not have come to any definite conclusion about presence or absence of workman at the time of presentation of grievance petition, without giving chance to him to lead evidence.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A & 38(3-a)
Preliminary legal objection was raised on behalf of employer that grievance petition was not maintainable as same was not presented by workman himself
Workman on the other hand had filed affidavit that he was present at the time of filing petition
When a legal objection required recording of evidence, generally, it was to be decided at time of final decision after evidence of both parties was recorded
Labour Court even otherwise could not have come to any definite conclusion about presence or absence of workman at the time of presentation of grievance petition, without giving chance to him to lead evidence. Masood Ahmed Khan, Representative for Appellant. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1991. This suo motu Revision Application has been filed against the order of learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No. It at Karachi dated 2-5-1991.
2. It appears that respondent Saifullah had filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court. The diary of the case did not show the presence of the respondent. The applicant therefore moved an application before the learned Labour Court raising Preliminary Legal Objection that the grievance application was not maintainable as it was not presented by the workman. The learned Labour Court issued notice to the respondent who filed an affidavit to the effect that he was present. It appears that the learned Labour Court examined the COC who stated that the respondent was not present. He was duly cross- examined by the respondent. However, the learned Labour Court declined to pass any order on this application, but directed that this issue would be framed and after evidence is recorded in the case this issue would also be decided alongwith other issues.
3. When a legal objection requires recording of evidence, generally it is decided at the time of final decision alter evidence of both the parties is recorded. Even otherwise the learned Labour Court could not have come to any definite conclusion about the presence or absence of workman at the time of presentation of grievance application, without giving chance to the respondent to lead evidence. Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan states, that the respondent had filed his affidavit-in-evidence in the grievance application itself.
4. Under these circumstances it will not take much time for the learned Labour Court to decide the matter finally including the issue in question. The Revision Application at this stage is dismissed with direction to learned Labour Court to dispose of the case within three months. If the learned Labour Court is not able to finally decide the case within three months, then the Preliminary Legal Objection should be decided within three months. H.B.T./1925/Lb.S Revision dismissed.