1988 PLP 789 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1988 PLP 789 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 789 (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 1988 PLP 789 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 789 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Khadim for Appellant.
- Ata‑ur‑Rehman Sheikh for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988.
- ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition, presentation of‑‑Petition dismissed due to improper presentation‑‑Contention that though petition was presented by Advocate but petitioner himself was also present and his presence was not recorded by Reader was a question of fact‑‑Order passed by Labour Court without opportunity of evidence on such point of fact, was set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision afresh on point of presentation of petition after opportunity of evidence to parties.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition, presentation of‑‑Petition dismissed due to improper presentation‑‑Contention that though petition was presented by Advocate but petitioner himself was also present and his presence was not recorded by Reader was a question of fact‑‑Order passed by Labour Court without opportunity of evidence on such point of fact, was set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision afresh on point of presentation of petition after opportunity of evidence to parties.
Judgment & Decree
M.A. Khadim for Appellant. Ata‑ur‑Rehman Sheikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 9‑2‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed for improper presentation.
2. The facts of the case are that the grievance petition was presented to the Reader on 19‑8‑1984 who directed its placement before the learned Presiding Officer on 9‑9‑1984. On the adjourned date the presence of a learned counsel for the appellant is recorded but not of the appellant. The appellant for the first time after that is recorded to have appeared in person on 30‑1‑1985 but by that time period for presentation of the grievance petition had expired. The case of the appellant is that he was present in person on every date but according to the practice, the Reader of the Court did not record the presence of .the party and recorded the presence of the counsel only. This is a question of fact and could be proved by evidence but the learned lower Court did not afford any opportunity to the appellant in this behalf. The learned Presiding Officer has remained on leave for a considerable period and this appears to be p the reason that on 19‑8‑1984 the Reader of the Court received the grievance petition. The Reader has not recorded who presented the petition. If on 19‑8‑1984 the appellant was present in person, the point for consideration would be whether the petition was brought within limitation. As the learned Presiding‑ Officer is absent for a considerable period and it is not known when he would come back, the litigant. may not be made to suffer. Anyhow, without giving an opportunity to prove that the appellant had presented the petition in person or that within limitation he had been appearing in person, the learned lower Court could not finally decide whether the presentation was proper or not.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the case is remanded for re-decision of the point of presentation after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the point. If the learned Lower Court comes to the conclusion that the presentation was proper the grievance petition will be decided on merits and on other legal points, if any. A.E./535/Lb.P Appeal accepted.