1984 PLP 942 (PLC(CS))
RAWALPINDI Versus KHAN ZAMAN
| Citation | 1984 PLP 942 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | RAWALPINDI Versus KHAN ZAMAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 942 (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 1984 PLP 942 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 942 (PLC(CS)) (RAWALPINDI Versus KHAN ZAMAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Akram for Respondent. Date of hearing 8th August, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 37 (3)‑Appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal ‑ Limita tion‑Valuable right accrued to respondent by lapse of time cannot be denied without cogent reasons‑Delay of six days ‑‑Condonation of application not disclosing any unavoidable reasons Condonation of delay refused,
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 37 (3)‑Appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal ‑ Limita tion‑Valuable right accrued to respondent by lapse of time cannot be denied without cogent reasons‑Delay of six days ‑‑Condonation of application not disclosing any unavoidable reasons Condonation of delay refused, Syed Intisar Hussain for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram for Respondent. Date of hearing 8th August, 1983. This appeal arises from the decision dated 5th September, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpandi whereby the punishment of W. I. P. awarded to the respon dent was reduced to W I. T.
2. The respondent went on leave and was due, on 3rd March, 1977 but did not report for duty and remained absent for about two years without leave. He reported on duty. He was after consideration of his case accepted on duty but the period of absence from 21st February, 1977 to 20th February, 1981 was treated as leave without pay and he was awarded punishment of W. I. P.
3. The appeal is time‑barred and the learned counsel for the respon dent has prayed that it be dismissed as such. An application for condona tion of delay has been made The reason is that last date was 24th October, 1982 but due to unavoidable reasons the papers could not reach the learned counsel till that .date. The appeal was presented on 30th October, 1982. This is evident from the application for condonation of delay that the unavoidable reasons have not been disclosed. The petition too is not supported by any affidavit. So the delay has not been explained. A valuable right has accrued to the respondent by lapse of time which cannot be denied without any cogent reasons. Since the delay has not been explained, no case of condonation of delay has been made out. 1, accordingly, reject the application for condonation of delay.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred. A. E. Appeal dismissed.