1971 PLP 118 (PLC)
MD. FALIK ALI Versus CHHATTAK CEMENT FACTORY, EPIDC, SYLHET
| Citation | 1971 PLP 118 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members |
| Parties | MD. FALIK ALI Versus CHHATTAK CEMENT FACTORY, EPIDC, SYLHET |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 118 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 118 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 118 (PLC) (MD. FALIK ALI Versus CHHATTAK CEMENT FACTORY, EPIDC, SYLHET). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25‑Delay‑Application made after expiry of 30 days from receipt of reply to grievance petition‑Time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
CHHATTAK CEMENT FACTORY, EPIDC, SYLHET Complaint Case No. 73 of 1970, decided on 6th July 1970. East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25‑Delay‑Application made after expiry of 30 days from receipt of reply to grievance petition‑Time‑barred. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25 of the Standing Orders Act by the petitioner for his, re‑instatement in service alleging that he has been illegally discharged without proper enquiry on the allegation levelled against him. 2nd party on the other hand, maintains that there was a proper enquiry on the charges against him and the petitioner having been found guilty of misconduct has been dis charged. Before entering into merit, I like to see if the application is in time. It appears that the petitioner submitted grievance petition by‑ his letter, dated 9‑12‑1969. A reply to that was received by the petitioner on 22‑12‑1969. That is the date given by the petitioner under his signature on the Acknowledg ment Receipt. There seems td be postal seal, dated 23‑12‑1969. Even then the petitioner is not coming before Court within 30 days from the data of decision on his grievance petition, the present Application having been filed on 23‑1‑1970 the application being barred by limitation we are not in a position to look into the merit of the cast. It appears that there was a sort of enquiry and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. Mr. Meerza has opined that the case is barred by limitation. Mr. Sabur advises for re‑instatement. . Any way I find the case tarred by limitation. Hence, That the application be rejected as time‑barred