1996 PLP 556 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD FAHIM and 22 others Versus M/s. A & B BEVERAGE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1996 PLP 556 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAHIM and 22 others Versus M/s. A & B BEVERAGE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 556 (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 1996 PLP 556 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 556 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD FAHIM and 22 others Versus M/s. A & B BEVERAGE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Ali, General Secretary for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1996.
- ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Delay in filing grievance petition ‑‑‑Condonation‑‑‑Employees who filed their grievance petitions late by seventeen days from prescribed period of limitation, had contended that such delay in filing grievance petition was due to disturbance and tension in the city and apprehension of clash between various sects and political groups‑‑‑In fact at no period condition in the city was so bad as to prevent employees or their Advocates from attending Labour Court to file grievance petition‑‑‑Movements of citizens in these days had not been stopped nor there was any curfew and Courts also were not closed‑‑‑Apprehension of employees being vague and it having failed to explain each day's delay in filing grievance petition/their grievance petitions were rightly dismissed by Labour Court being barred by time.
- These are 23 separate appeals against the orders on grievance applications under section ?S.‑A of the I.R.O. passed by the learned Labour Court No.3. Karachi dismissing the applications as being time‑barred. The services of the appellants were terminated by an order dated 27‑11‑1994. This termination order was passed after getting permission under section 1 I‑A of the Ordinance from Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi to close down the Seven tip Beverages Unit situated at SITE, Karachi. The appellants challenged the order of termination but the respondents company in reply dated 9‑3‑1995 failed to redress their grievances. The appellants then preferred grievance petitions before the Labour Court on 25‑5‑1995. Applications were also filed to condone the delay as the period of limitation under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. had expired on 7‑5‑1995 and the grievance petitions were filed late by 17 days on 25‑5‑1995. The reasons for condonation of delay were identical in all the grievance petitions and this delay of 17 days was explained as being due to disturbance and tension in the city and apprehension of clash between various sects or political groups. At no period in the city was the condition so bad as to prevent the applicants or their advocates from attending the Labour Court to file the petitions, the apprehension was vague. The movement of the residents had not been stopped nor was there any curfew and the. Courts had not closed. The learned Labour court has rightly pointed out that each day's delay has to be explained and all the 23 workers could not have remained confined in their residences for a continuous period of 17 days. The grievance petitions were accordingly dismissed as being time‑barred.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Delay in filing grievance petition
Employees who filed their grievance petitions late by seventeen days from prescribed period of limitation, had contended that such delay in filing grievance petition was due to disturbance and tension in the city and apprehension of clash between various sects and political groups
In fact at no period condition in the city was so bad as to prevent employees or their Advocates from attending Labour Court to file grievance petition
Movements of citizens in these days had not been stopped nor there was any curfew and Courts also were not closed
Apprehension of employees being vague and it having failed to explain each day's delay in filing grievance petition/their grievance petitions were rightly dismissed by Labour Court being barred by time.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Delay in filing grievance petition ‑‑‑Condonation‑‑‑Employees who filed their grievance petitions late by seventeen days from prescribed period of limitation, had contended that such delay in filing grievance petition was due to disturbance and tension in the city and apprehension of clash between various sects and political groups‑‑‑In fact at no period condition in the city was so bad as to prevent employees or their Advocates from attending Labour Court to file grievance petition‑‑‑Movements of citizens in these days had not been stopped nor there was any curfew and Courts also were not closed‑‑‑Apprehension of employees being vague and it having failed to explain each day's delay in filing grievance petition/their grievance petitions were rightly dismissed by Labour Court being barred by time. Sadiq Ali, General Secretary for Appellants. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1996. DECISION These are 23 separate appeals against the orders on grievance applications under section ?S.‑A of the I.R.O. passed by the learned Labour Court No.3. Karachi dismissing the applications as being time‑barred. The services of the appellants were terminated by an order dated 27‑11‑1994. This termination order was passed after getting permission under section 1 I‑A of the Ordinance from Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi to close down the Seven tip Beverages Unit situated at SITE, Karachi. The appellants challenged the order of termination but the respondents company in reply dated 9‑3‑1995 failed to redress their grievances. The appellants then preferred grievance petitions before the Labour Court on 25‑5‑1995. Applications were also filed to condone the delay as the period of limitation under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. had expired on 7‑5‑1995 and the grievance petitions were filed late by 17 days on 25‑5‑1995. The reasons for condonation of delay were identical in all the grievance petitions and this delay of 17 days was explained as being due to disturbance and tension in the city and apprehension of clash between various sects or political groups. At no period in the city was the condition so bad as to prevent the applicants or their advocates from attending the Labour Court to file the petitions, the apprehension was vague. The movement of the residents had not been stopped nor was there any curfew and the. Courts had not closed. The learned Labour court has rightly pointed out that each day's delay has to be explained and all the 23 workers could not have remained confined in their residences for a continuous period of 17 days. The grievance petitions were accordingly dismissed as being time‑barred.
2. The order of the Labour Court is thus reasonable and proper and I cannot find any ground for interference. The orders of the Labour Court are therefore maintained and these 23 separate appeals are dismissed in limine. H.B.T./28/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.