1992 PLP 304 (PLC)
RASHID ALI Versus TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI through Chairman
| Citation | 1992 PLP 304 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | RASHID ALI Versus TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI through Chairman |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1989) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 304 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1989) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 304 (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: 1992 PLP 304 (PLC) (RASHID ALI Versus TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI through Chairman). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Samdani, Representative for Appellant.
- Abdul Rehman Butt for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Grievance petition of employee filed against his removal from service was dismissed by Labour Court in limine on point of limitation without hearing employee
Material presented before Presiding Officer of Court should have been properly looked into by him and he could reach that conclusion if he was so satisfied, on the question of limitation but matter should have not been dismissed in limine-- The same order dismissing grievance petition in limine was set aside and case remanded for proceeding on merits according to law.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Rehman Butt for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1991. In the light of the order, I proposed to pass in this appeal, front a petition dismissed in limine by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, I will advert to the facts very succinctly.
2. The appellant was engaged as a Labourer by the respondents and within a short period was promoted to the post of Khalasi. However, they did not feel happy with his conduct as a result thereof after due notice, he was removed from service on 9-12-1990.
3. The grievance petition has been dismissed only on the point of limitation. The starting point had been computed from the order of dismissal and the learned Presiding Officer was of the opinion that it could not be unknown to the appellant as in the grievance petition filed on 7-8-1991; he was talking of a mercy appeal filed before the employer.
4. It has, however, to be noticed that he had mentioned it in an altogether different context. It was open to the learned Presiding Officer to accept his version or reject it but he should have been provided him with an opportunity to put some construction on it.
5. All that we know from Mr. Abdul Rehman Butt appearing on behalf of the respondents is that the appellant had declined to accept the copy of the order when it was sent to him per Peon Book. We are further informed that then it was later sent to him per registered letter A/D. On his own showing, the acknowledgement receipt or the envelope is not with them at all.
6. I am clearly of the view that the material, which had been presented before the learned Presiding Officer, should have been properly looked into. He could reach the same conclusion, if he was so satisfied but the matter should not have been dismissed in limine. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Presiding Officer for proceeding on merit according to law. H.B.T./2003/Lb. S Case remanded.