1992 PLP 1204 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus FIRST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1204 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus FIRST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1204 (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 1992 PLP 1204 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1204 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus FIRST SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Majeed, Representative for Appellant.
- Muhammad Rehan Aqeel for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
Grievance notice sent by petitioner to respondent/employer after more than five years lapse
There could be no conceivable justification to condone delay of over five years-- Contention raised by appellant, that his services having been terminated verbally, and without giving any reason same was a mere nullity of law, would hardly deserve any serious consideration in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.25-A
Grievance notice sent by petitioner to respondent/employer after more than five years lapse
There could be no conceivable justification to condone delay of over five years-- Contention raised by appellant, that his services having been terminated verbally, and without giving any reason same was a mere nullity of law, would hardly deserve any serious consideration in circumstances. A. Majeed, Representative for Appellant. Muhammad Rehan Aqeel for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 9th February, 1992. The appellant was working as Stenographer with the respondent No.2. In the grievance petition he was not specific about the date of the termination of his service but in the grievance notice he had taken the stand that he had been removed from service in 1988. The written statement filed by respondent No. 2 disclosed that he had been removed from service with one month's notice on 16-6-1983 and he had collected all the payments due to him on that date and. the case was totally malicious.
2. It is not necessary to dilate on the evidence in the case. It is clearly made out that he had parted from the respondents firm on 16-3-1983. Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned representative for the appellant has candidly admitted the fact and that the grievance notice had been sent by him on 15-6-1988.
3. All that he contended was that because the appellant's services had been terminated verbally and without giving any reason, therefore such a termination of service was a mere nullity in law and- under the circumstances even a delayed grievance notice should pass muster.
4. There can be no conceivable justification to condone a delay of over 5 years and I am afraid that the contention hardly deserves any serious consideration. The appeal is. therefore, dismissed. A.A./2022/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.