1995 PLP 61 (PLC)
IKHTIAR AHMED and 14 others Versus ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD., HYDERABAD through its Manager
| Citation | 1995 PLP 61 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | IKHTIAR AHMED and 14 others Versus ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD., HYDERABAD through its Manager |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 61 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 61 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 61 (PLC) (IKHTIAR AHMED and 14 others Versus ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD., HYDERABAD through its Manager). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellants, Javed Mir for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th September, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Employees alongwith several others were appointed to work as apprentices for three years and after expiry of three years, services of all employees were terminated‑‑‑Some employees challenged their termination by filing grievance petition, which finally was accepted and they were ordered to be re‑instated‑‑‑Employees who had not joined earlier proceedings, filed their grievance petitions after more than three years from their termination on ground that order of termination passed by employers had been declared null and void by Court in earlier proceedings‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employees after inordinate delay could not be maintained and argument that in earlier grievance petition in which they were not party similar order of termination had been declared null and void, was also of ‑no avail as void by words `void order' could not be used as a magic wand‑‑‑Use of such void order was associated with Courts of law or quasi‑judicial forums and not decisions taken or orders passed by employers. Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Bakhsh and others PLD 1976 SC 37 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 19th September, 1994. These fifteen appeals call in question the Order of the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad dismissing the grievance application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.,1969 in limine. The circumstances forming the background of the cases are as follows.
2. The present appellants alongwith several other, persons were appointed by the respondents in January, 1983 to work as apprentices for three years. Their services came to be terminated on 30‑9‑1986. Some 35 of the aggrieved employees challenged the termination of their services before the Labour Court and their petitions came to be allowed. The respondents had taken appeals against these orders before this Tribunal and withdrew the same on 4‑5‑1991.
3. The news had spread and the employees who had not joined the contest ‑earlier, made representations to the respondents for their reinstatement also but without any luck. It was, thereafter, that grievance notices were sent by them and petitions were filed before the Labour Court.
4. Objections having been raised by the Office the learned Presiding Officer heard the learned counsel for the petitioners about the maintainability of the petitions as the dispute had been raised years after the termination of their services.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question of the bar of limitation did not arise as the impugned termination by the respondents had in the words of the learned counsel been declared as null and void by the Labour Court. The contention was not accepted resulting in the impugned order.
6. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant had nothing to add except what he had urged before the Labour Court and Mr. Javed Mir, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents stopped short by saying that the appeals are barred by time as the cause of action had arisen in 1986 and the redress was sought years thereafter.
7. I am afraid the appeals are devoid of all merit. Every day orders of the employers are being set aside by the Labour Courts for one reason or the other. The word "void order" cannot be used as a magic wand. Its use is associated with Courts of Law or quasi‑judicial forums and not decisions taken or orders passed by the employers. (See Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Bakhsh and others (PLD 1976 SC 37).
8. There is no substance in these appeals. I will, therefore, dismiss them. H.B.T./2359/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.