1994 PLP 221 (PLC)
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal CHIEF ENGINEER (GSO), WAPDA (SOUTH), HYDERABAD and another Versus BASHIR AHMED
| Citation | 1994 PLP 221 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal CHIEF ENGINEER (GSO), WAPDA (SOUTH), HYDERABAD and another |
| Parties | Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal CHIEF ENGINEER (GSO), WAPDA (SOUTH), HYDERABAD and another Versus BASHIR AHMED |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute ‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 221 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute ‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 221 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal CHIEF ENGINEER (GSO), WAPDA (SOUTH), HYDERABAD and another.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 221 (PLC) (Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal CHIEF ENGINEER (GSO), WAPDA (SOUTH), HYDERABAD and another Versus BASHIR AHMED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Siddique Mirza for Appellants.
- Bashir Awan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Delay‑‑‑Condonation‑‑‑Appeal against order of Court below was filed before Tribunal after delay of 64 days‑‑‑No sufficient cause having been made out for condonation of such delay, appeal was incompetent on point of limitation. Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Bux PLD 1976 SC 37 and Government of Balochistan v. Abdul Nabi and another 1988 SCMR 1900 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Siddique Mirza for Appellants. Bashir Awan for Respondent. This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 64 days and was admitted subject to the point of limitation. The order of the Labour Court was passed on 9‑12‑1992 and the copy was applied for on 9‑12‑1992. It is said in the affidavit in support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act that on the receipt of the order, the competent authority by letter dated 1‑2‑1993 sought advise from the Law Division WAPDA Lahore and there was a direction to submit the required information to the Legal Ad6sor Lahore for taking necessary action. Then the appellant concerned had asked the Superintending Engineer to collect all the document,. There is also a mention of some member of the staff being sent to collect papers from the counsel who was appearing at Sukkur. It was ultimately on the 13th of April that the appeal came to be presented before this Tribunal.
3. Mr. Siddique Mir/it learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the papers were moving to and from three different places, and some office routine also was necessarily involved, this will lm a fit case to condone the delay. He also referred to the case of Ali Muhammad v. Hussain .Box PLD 1976 SC page 37.
4. The case had been transferred by the N.I.R.C. to the Labour Court for adjudication. It has not been contended before me that the N.I.R.C. had no jurisdiction in the matter. Be as it may there is a string of authority in which it has been held that the Government cases are not to be treated differently from an ordinary, litigant. I am afraid sufficient cause has not been made out for condonation of delay. See Government of Balochistan v. Abdul Nabi and another 1988 SCMR.1906. As a result I will dismiss it on that ground alone. H.B.T./2257/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.