1986 PLP 330 (PLC)
ALLAH DITTA Versus UNITED COTTON MILLS, JAUHARABAD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 330 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA Versus UNITED COTTON MILLS, JAUHARABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 330 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 330 (PLC)?
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 330 (PLC) (ALLAH DITTA Versus UNITED COTTON MILLS, JAUHARABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice to employer‑‑Mandatory‑‑Grievance petition against alleged lock‑out‑‑Written statement of employer stating that petitioner was dismissed‑‑Petitioner on coming to know from written statement about his dismissal, held, should have brought grievance notice and could bring grievance petition if his grievance not redressed‑‑Grievance petition filed without grievance notice, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majid for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 24th August, 1980, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby grievance petition of the appellant for re‑instatement was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted for being habitual absentee. He filed reply which was considereG unsatisfactory and inquiry was held. During the inquiry the appellant slipped away and again he was served a notice to join inquiry but he did not care.
3. The case of the appellant however, is that he was locked out from 12‑12‑1979, he therefore, served grievance notice on 11‑1‑1980 and brought grievance petition. In the written statement the respondent took up plea that the appellant had been dismissed on 5‑2‑1980. In spite of it the appellant did not serve any grievance notice to the respondent against dismissal, dated 5‑2‑1980. No doubt before written statement was filed the appellant Was not known that he had been dismissed and when he learned from the written statement that he had been dismissed vide order, dated 5‑2‑1980 he should have brought grievance notice and if the same was not redressed then he should bring grievance petition for setting aside the said order provision of section 25‑A in respect of service of grievance notice are mandatory and without the service of such notice grievance petition is not competent. His grievance petition was for the alleged lock out. The grievance petition, therefore, failed on the short ground. It was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. There is no force in appeal which is dismissed. M.Y.M. Appeal dismissed.