1993 PLP 720 (PLC(CS))
GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1993 PLP 720 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 720 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 720 (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: 1993 PLP 720 (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Manzar Alam for Appellant.
- Abdul Rauf Kasuri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)... ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Employee who was employed for one year only was relieved of his job at the end of stipulated period‑‑ Employee served grievance notice on employer after lapse. of 17 months from date he was relieved of his job‑‑‑Such delay in serving grievance notice on employer having not been explained, grievance petition filed by employee was rightly dismissed being barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Rauf Kasuri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th April, 1993. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court, Sukkur, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.,1969. It arose in the following circumstances.
2. The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Foreman on contract, in the Transportation Workshop of Shah Nawaz Bhutto Sugar Mills, Naudero, for eight weeks only, on 20‑10‑1984. With breaks he was offered the same employment for limited periods. The last of these assignment was on 23‑6‑1987 for a period of one year. The letter ends on the following note: "The nature of his employment is purely temporary and terminable without any notice during this period, if his work is not found to be satisfactory:" He was relieved of his job at the end of the stipulated period verbally, i.e. on 1‑6‑1988. He had, thereupon, made representation to various authorities in the country. It appears that there was a letter from the Ministry of Production for the re‑employment of certain persons; the appellant being one of them. The re‑employment however eluded him, though according to his version the others were luckier.
3. He, therefore, served a grievance notice after a lapse of 17 months on 13‑11‑1989. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition on the short . ground that it was barred by time.
4. The contention of Mr. Manzar Alam that the appellant had a fresh grievance accruing, when the recommendation of authorities was not implemented by the respondents, is devoid of any merit. Under the scheme of section 25‑A, I.R.O. the cause of such grievance had arisen on 1‑6‑1988 and redress had to be sought within a period of five and a half month. Patently the delay of 17 months had not been explained and this is enough to dispose of the appeal.
5. In the result I will affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2195/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.