1991 PLP 174 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD GOFRAN ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE
| Citation | 1991 PLP 174 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD GOFRAN ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 174 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 174 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 174 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD GOFRAN ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1990.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Rehan Aqeel, Advocate for the applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Respondent worker filed before Labour Court a grievance petition challenging order of his removal from service by establishment‑‑‑Application was made by establishment before Labour Court praying that grievance petition be dismissed on ground treat same was time‑barred as respondent had not given date of his removal from service and only had mentioned in his grievance notice that he had served for over 28 years‑‑‑Labour Court dismissed said application on ground that question of limitation was mixed question of fact and law which could only be decided after evidence was recorded‑‑ ‑Held, order of Labour Court was not illegal or incorrect to call for any interference by Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu revisional power‑‑‑Revision application was dismissed and Labour Court was directed to dispose of case. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Pleadings‑‑‑Application or complaint‑‑‑If any application or complaint is dismissed without proceedings of case, then only pleadings of applicant are to be looked into and the pleadings of the respondent are not to be taken into consideration‑‑‑If pleadings in a grievance application appeared to be vague with regard to date of cause of action, no adverse inference, held, could be drawn unless applicant was given chance to give evidence with regard to date of cause of action. Muhammad Rehan Aqeel for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
S.25-A
If any application or complaint is dismissed without proceedings of case, then only pleadings of applicant are to be looked into and the pleadings of the respondent are not to be taken into consideration
If pleadings in a grievance application appeared to be vague with regard to date of cause of action, no adverse inference, held, could be drawn unless applicant was given chance to give evidence with regard to date of cause of action. Muhammad Rehan Aqeel for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1990. This application is moved under section 38(3-A) of the I.R.O., 1969, invoking Suo Motu jurisdiction of this Tribunal and praying that the R & P of grievance Application No.264/88, pending in the Labour Court No.1 at Karachi, be called to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 1-2-1990, passed by the learned Labour Court.
2. I have heard Mr. Rehan Aqeel, Advocate for the applicant.
3. The respondent had filed his grievance petition in 1988,, challenging his removal from service by the applicant. The applicant filed an application before the learned Labour Court, praying that the grievance petition be dismissed on the ground that the grievance petition was time-barred. The main contention of Mr. Aqeel is, that the respondent had not given the date of his removal from service but he has mentioned in his grievance notice dated 15-6-1988 that he had served the applicant for 28-1/2 years. It is contended by him, that if this period of 28-1/2 years is calculated from the date of appointment, which is shown in his grievance application, it would be clear that the application was time-barred. The learned Labour Court had dismissed the application on the ground that the question of limitation was mixed question of fact and law which can only be decided after the evidence is recorded. It is settled principle of law, that if any application or complaint is dismissed without proceedings of the case, then only the pleadings of the applicant are to be looked into and the pleadings of the respondent are not be taken into consideration. No doubt the pleadings in the grievance application appear to be vague, with regard to the date of cause of action but no adverse interference can be drawn, unless the applicant is given chance to give evidence with regard to the date of cause of action.
4. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the order of the learned Labour Court is not illegal or incorrect to call for any interference by this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed. However, the learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible. M.Y.H./1681/L.B.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.