1977 PLP (1) (PLC)
AMIR KHAN Versus D1STRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN
| Citation | 1977 PLP (1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IVth Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR KHAN Versus D1STRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP (1) (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 1977 PLP (1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IVth Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP (1) (PLC) (AMIR KHAN Versus D1STRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
- Muhammad Hussain Naz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 65-B read with limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5--Limitation - Condonation of delay - Application and grounds for condonation for delay not considered and discussed by Junior Labour Court in order dismissing petition treating it so time-barred Case remanded for redecision on merits of such application.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court Multan, dated 11th December, 1474 whereby the petition under section under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, filed by Amir Khan appellant was dismissed as being time-barred. The preliminary point raised in this appeal is regarding limitation fear the original petition. The appeal is accep table on the short ground that an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, submitted by the appellant in the learned lower Curt is not traceable on its record despite a reply statement to the said application being present on the file. The representative respondent Management Mr. Muhammad Hussain, A. T. M. has not denied the fact that an. application for the condona tion of the delay was filed by the appellant which stands evidenced by the reply statement of the respondent. The points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant for the condonation of delay have slot been discussed in the impugned order and are said to have been detailed in the application ire question now missing from the record. It can easily be concluded that the necessary material before the learned Lower Court was not taken into account while deciding the case. There is no alternative but to remand the case to the learned lower Court for re-decision after recording finding as to the submission or otherwise of the missing application in case the said application is found to have been filed in the court and was misplaced untraceably it would be reconstructed in due course on the evidence of the parties and being placed on the record, fresh decision will be given on merits. The case being remanded accordingly the parties are bound to appear on that Court on 23rd June, 1975.