1981 PLP 719 (PLC(CS))
PARADISE CINEMA, SUKKUR Versus ABDUL WAHID AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1981 PLP 719 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PARADISE CINEMA, SUKKUR Versus ABDUL WAHID AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Appeal allowed |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 719 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal allowed as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 719 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 719 (PLC(CS)) (PARADISE CINEMA, SUKKUR Versus ABDUL WAHID AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer served through Advocate or served after expiry of 3 months of cause of action‑Cannot form foundation of grievance petition before Labour Court.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Shamim Choudhry for the appellants, while the respondent have remained absent. The sole point on which Mr. Shamim Choudhry assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and contended that the grievance petitions of the 2 contes ting respondents were not maintainable, was that the respondents had served the grievance notice upon the appellants‑ through an advocate, but such notices are invalid, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company, decided on 8th March, 1980. According to the respondents themselves, their services were terminated verbally with effect from 18th April, 1979. Both of them served separate grievance notices, through their Advocate, upon the appel lants. . These notices are dated 20th April, 1979. However, in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Hussain, these notices cannot be taken into consideration and no grievance petition can be founded on them. Subsequently, another notice, dated 1st July, 1979, was sent by the 2 contesting respondents to the appellants, but as this notice too was served through an advocate, it also is invalid and cannot form the foundation of a grievance petition. Perhaps realizing their error in sending notice through an advocate, each of the 2 contesting, respondents sent a still third notice, dated 31st July, 1979. Although these notices were sent to the appellants by the 2 contes ting respondents themselves, the said notices also cannot be taken into consideration as they have been after the expiry of 3 months from 18th April, 1979, when according to the respondents themselves the cause of action accrued to them. The third set of notices thus also cannot form the 'foundation of the grievance petitions filed by the 2 contesting respondents, Their grievance petitions thus are clearly not maintainable.
Headnotes / Summary
3. For the reasons given by me above, I would set aside the impugn ed decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer served through Advocate or served after expiry of 3 months of cause of action‑Cannot form foundation of grievance petition before Labour Court. Shamim Choudhry for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 17th November, 1980. This appeal is directed against a decision "of the learned VIIth Labour. Court, given on 20th May, 1980, allowing the grievance peti tions of the 2 contesting respondents and directing the appellants to re instate them in service.
2. I have heard Mr. Shamim Choudhry for the appellants, while the respondent have remained absent. The sole point on which Mr. Shamim Choudhry assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and contended that the grievance petitions of the 2 contes ting respondents were not maintainable, was that the respondents had served the grievance notice upon the appellants‑ through an advocate, but such notices are invalid, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company, decided on 8th March, 1980. According to the respondents themselves, their services were terminated verbally with effect from 18th April, 1979. Both of them served separate grievance notices, through their Advocate, upon the appel lants. . These notices are dated 20th April, 1979. However, in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Hussain, these notices cannot be taken into consideration and no grievance petition can be founded on them. Subsequently, another notice, dated 1st July, 1979, was sent by the 2 contesting respondents to the appellants, but as this notice too was served through an advocate, it also is invalid and cannot form the foundation of a grievance petition. Perhaps realizing their error in sending notice through an advocate, each of the 2 contesting, respondents sent a still third notice, dated 31st July, 1979. Although these notices were sent to the appellants by the 2 contes ting respondents themselves, the said notices also cannot be taken into consideration as they have been after the expiry of 3 months from 18th April, 1979, when according to the respondents themselves the cause of action accrued to them. The third set of notices thus also cannot form the 'foundation of the grievance petitions filed by the 2 contesting respondents, Their grievance petitions thus are clearly not maintainable.
3. For the reasons given by me above, I would set aside the impugn ed decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal.