1991 PLP 390 (PLC)
THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and another Versus MEHR ALI
| Citation | 1991 PLP 390 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and another Versus MEHR ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 390 (PLC)?
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 390 (PLC)?
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 390 (PLC) (THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and another Versus MEHR ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellants.
- Umar Farooq Khan for Respondent,
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989.
- ----S.25-A---Industrial Dispute---Dismissal---Appeal, presentation of---Appeal must be presented by appellant itself---Appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/person or Clerk or representative is not maintainable-- Appeal filed before Tribunal presented by Clerk of appellant who did not produce even letter of authority to do so, held, was not properly presented and thus not maintainable.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, learned Advocate for the respondent.
- 3. The appeal does not appear to have been properly instituted as it is not presented by the appellant but by one Mr. Zulfiqar Ali, Head Clerk of the appellants. It may be pointed out that the appellants are the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur and Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur but none of the appellants personally presented the appeal. Reference may be made to the decision of this Tribunal in the cases of Director, Medical Services, K.M.C. and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 P L C 175; Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union 1989 P L C 176 and Sijawal Khan v. Messrs Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 P L C 262. In all these decisions this Tribunal has held that appeal must be presented by the appellant itself and appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/Person, Attorney or Representative was not maintainable. In the instant case the person who presented the appeal has not even produced letter of authority as such the appeal is not properly presented and is accordingly, not maintainable.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Industrial Dispute‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑‑Appeal, presentation of‑‑‑Appeal must be presented by appellant itself‑‑‑Appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/person or Clerk or representative is not maintainable‑‑ Appeal filed before Tribunal presented by Clerk of appellant who did not produce even letter of authority to do so, held, was not properly presented and thus not maintainable. Director, Medical Services K.M.C. and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 175; Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union 1989 P L C 176 and Sijawal Khan v. Messrs Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 P L C 262 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Director, Medical Services K.M.C. and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 175; Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union 1989 P L C 176 and Sijawal Khan v. Messrs Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 P L C 262 ref. Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellants. Umar Farooq Khan for Respondent, Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 17-12-1988, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed as prayed.
2. I have heard Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, learned Advocate for the respondent.
3. The appeal does not appear to have been properly instituted as it is not presented by the appellant but by one Mr. Zulfiqar Ali, Head Clerk of the appellants. It may be pointed out that the appellants are the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur and Divisional Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur but none of the appellants personally presented the appeal. Reference may be made to the decision of this Tribunal in the cases of Director, Medical Services, K.M.C. and another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 P L C 175; Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union 1989 P L C 176 and Sijawal Khan v. Messrs Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 P L C
262. In all these decisions this Tribunal has held that appeal must be presented by the appellant itself and appeal presented by an Advocate, Agent, Authorised Officer/Person, Attorney or Representative was not maintainable. In the instant case the person who presented the appeal has not even produced letter of authority as such the appeal is not properly presented and is accordingly, not maintainable. M.Y.H./1615/Lb.S Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.