1982 PLP 1037 (PLC(CS))
XEN HIGHWAY DIVISION No. II, LARKAN.A AND ANOTHER Versus MANZOOR AHMED
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1037 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | XEN HIGHWAY DIVISION No. II, LARKAN.A AND ANOTHER Versus MANZOOR AHMED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1037 (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 1982 PLP 1037 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1037 (PLC(CS)) (XEN HIGHWAY DIVISION No. II, LARKAN.A AND ANOTHER Versus MANZOOR AHMED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzar Alan for Appellants.
- Hassan Hameedi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 37(31‑‑Appeal from decision of Labour Court‑Appeal filed after having become time‑barred but no grounds shown for delay‑Appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. 37(31‑‑Appeal from decision of Labour Court‑Appeal filed after having become time‑barred but no grounds shown for delay‑Appeal dismissed. Manzar Alan for Appellants. Hassan Hameedi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1982. This appeal is directed against the derision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 28th May, 1981, holding that the removal from service of the respondent workman was invalid, in that the removal was effected without giving the respondent a show‑cause notice or charge sheet and holding a domestic enquiry. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal has been raised by Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned counsel for the respondent workman. He has submitted that the impugned decision was given on 28th May, 1981. The endorsement on the certified copy of the decision filed with the memo. of appeal shows that the copy of the deci sion was ready on 28th May, 1981. However, an application for being furnished the copy was submitted on behalf of the appellants on 8tht June, 1981. On the same date, copy of the decision was delivered to the appellants. Since the appeal was preferred on 28th October, 1981, and no grounds have been shown for the condonation of delay, the appeal is I hopelessly time‑barred and is accordingly dismissed on that ground. It has been my experience that appeals by Government agencies are generally delayed. This is unfortunate as not only the appeals in such cases become time‑barred but the Government has unecessarily to incur and pay liabilities which may not really be due. The said expenditure, in turn, falls upon the public from whom it is recovered in the form of taxes, etc. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Engineer, High Ways, for making enquiries as to who is responsible for allowing the appeal to be time‑barred and for taking such action against the persons responsible for the delay as may be considered appropriate.