1989 PLP 908 (PLC(CS))
KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS Versus ALLAH DAD
| Citation | 1989 PLP 908 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS Versus ALLAH DAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 908 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 908 (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: 1989 PLP 908 (PLC(CS)) (KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS Versus ALLAH DAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saleem Baig for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Adjudication of‑‑Procedure‑‑Service of grievance notice in time and status of petitioner as "workman" disputed‑ Labour Court without properly deciding such disputed issues accepting petition and awarding reinstatement with back benefits‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for fresh decision after affording opportunity of evidence to parties on disputed issues.
Judgment & Decree
The decision dated 16‑12‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was initially recruited as junior clerk. He was promoted as Senior Clerk and thereafter as local purchaser. His services were terminated as being surplus. The learned lower Court has observed that as the respondent was a promoted, he could have been reverted to the lower post if he had become surplus while serving as Local Purchaser.
3. The point whether the grievance notice was served in time has not been properly decided by the learned lower Court. 8‑7‑1985 is not the date of despatch or service of grievance notice. Rather the copy produced carries the said date. No A postal receipt was produced to show on what date the notice was actually despatched by registered post. Likewise no A.D. receipt was produced to show on what date the notice was actually delivered. No doubt, the service of grievance notice was admitted, but since the contention was that it was time‑barred, the postal or A.D. receipt should have been produced. Upto 10th grievance notice could be validly served. Since the date of despatch and date of actual delivery are not known, the learned lower Court wrongly decided that the fact that service of grievance notice within time was established. The appellant too did not disclose the date on which the notice reached to it. So the points need to be thrashed out again.
4. The point whether the respondent is covered by the definition of' workman is also disputed. Since the case is being remanded, the parties may be afforded further opportunity to lead evidence about the duties of the respondent.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for the redecision in the light of the observations made above after affording further opportunity to the parties to produce evidence if they so like. A.E./582/Lb. P Appeal accepted.