1986 PLP 502 (PLC(CS))
ABDUL SATTAR Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, MUZAFFARGARH and another
| Citation | 1986 PLP 502 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, MUZAFFARGARH and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XZIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 502 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XZIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 502 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1986 PLP 502 (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL SATTAR Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, MUZAFFARGARH and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Appellant in person. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing; 16th October, 1985
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation by counsel‑‑Not proper‑ Petitioner appearing in person within limitation period‑‑Petition presented by counsel, in circumstances, held, stood properly presented.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation by counsel‑‑Not proper‑ Petitioner appearing in person within limitation period‑‑Petition presented by counsel, in circumstances, held, stood properly presented. Appellant in person. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing; 16th October, 1985 The order dated 25‑5‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected on the ground that it was not presented by him in person but was presented by his counsel.
2. No doubt, it has been held by the High Court that presentation, of grievance petition by the counsel is not proper but the present case is different. This is true that the petition was presented by the lawyer but since within limitation the appellant appeared and pursued the case, the petition could not be rejected. Grievance notice was issued A on 10‑5‑1982. Limitation for the presentation of the grievance petition was upto 25‑7‑1982. The appellant appeared in person on 15‑6‑1982 to pursue the case. So, on the said date the grievance petition stood properly presented by the appellant himself. There is no force in the argument that since on 27‑5‑1982 when the petition was presented by the lawyer, the appellant was not present, it was immaterial that on 15‑6‑1982 he had appeared in person. Suppose the petition had been sent by post, the presentation would not be proper, but it became proper when the appellant appeared in person within limitation.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is sent back for decision on merits. A.E. Appeal accepted.