1996 PLP 644 (PLC(CS))
TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus YOUSUF
| Citation | 1996 PLP 644 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus YOUSUF |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 644 (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 1996 PLP 644 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 644 (PLC(CS)) (TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus YOUSUF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rehman Butt for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 38
Date of birth of employee as entered into employer's record at time of appointment of employee, was challenged by employee nearly one year after retirement notice was served on him
Employee was bound to find out evidence regarding his date of birth soon after his date of appointment with employer
Grievance notice was mandatory for filing of grievance petition, but employee had not given grievance notice before filing his such petition in Labour Court
Grievance petition filed by employee without first serving grievance notice upon employer within prescribed period of three months, having incompetently been allowed by Labour Court, order of Labour Court was set aside in appeal. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Rehman Butt for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1996. This appeal arises from order of the Sindh Labour Court No. V, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of respondent Yousuf for changing the date of his retirement intimated to him by the Port Trust.
2. The respondent was employed with the Port Trust, Karachi as a Sawyer. His date of birth entered into Port Trust record was 2‑5‑1933 and he had, therefore, to be retired at the age of 60 years from 2‑5‑1993. He was given notice of retirement dated 11‑11‑1991. Thereafter, it came to his knowledge that his date of birth according to Cantonment records was 10‑8‑1938. He, therefore, informed the Chairman K.P.T. about his discovery on 1‑9‑1992. Even if intimation by the respondent is regarded as grievance notice it has been sent more than 11 months after the date of grievance and the grievance petition has been filed on 4‑11‑1992 about 12 months from the date of grievance. The grievance notice is mandatory for filing of grievance petition but in this case no grievance notice was given and even the representation has been sent after 11 months. It was duty of the respondent workman to find evidence regarding his date of birth soon after his date of appointment in the K.P.T. but he has moved the K.P.T. after completing his period of service and nearly one year after the retirement notice. Even if the representation is regarded as grievance notice it is time‑barred as it should have been given within three months from the cause of action of the notice of retirement. The delay has not been explained.
3. The order of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal of S1 K.P.T. is allowed. He has by now completed 58 years of the age even according to his own estimation. He may, therefore, be retired from service now if the K.P.T. so chooses. H.B.T./56/Lb.S Appeal allowed.