1995 PLP 564 (PLC)
ALLAH NAWAZ SHEIKH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
| Citation | 1995 PLP 564 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ALLAH NAWAZ SHEIKH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 564 (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 1995 PLP 564 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1995 PLP 564 (PLC) (ALLAH NAWAZ SHEIKH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Appellant in person. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988.
- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition, presented by Advocate dismissed for improper presentation‑‑‑Petitioner contending his presence also at the time of presentation‑‑‑Presence of petitioner though not recorded in order of Labour Court was yet a question of fact which could not be resolved without evidence‑‑‑Holding such presentation improper, held, would be unsafe unless petitioner was afforded opportunity to prove his own presence at the time of presentation of petition or thereafter within limitation period‑‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for redecision on point of presence in person of petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition, presented by Advocate dismissed for improper presentation‑‑‑Petitioner contending his presence also at the time of presentation‑‑‑Presence of petitioner though not recorded in order of Labour Court was yet a question of fact which could not be resolved without evidence‑‑‑Holding such presentation improper, held, would be unsafe unless petitioner was afforded opportunity to prove his own presence at the time of presentation of petition or thereafter within limitation period‑‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for redecision on point of presence in person of petitioner. 1985 PLC 413 ref.
Judgment & Decree
1985 PLC 413 ref. Appellant in person. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 12‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed for improper presentation following 1985 PLC 413.
2. The ground on which the grievance petition was dismissed was that it had been presented by the lawyer and not by the appellant. The appellant's contention is that he was present in person alongwith his counsel when the grievance petition was presented. The learned lower Court did not call upon the appellant to prove that he had himself presented the grievance petition. This was a question of fact and without inviting evidence could not be resolved. No doubt, the presence of the appellant is not recorded in the order of presentation of the grievance petition but the possibility cannot be excluded that through mistake it may not have been recorded. So, unless the appellant had been afforded opportunity to prove that he was present in, person at the time of presentation of the grievance petition or that thereafter within limitation he had appeared himself to pursue the case, it was unsafe to hold that the presentation was not proper.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision of the f point. If the learned lower Court holds that the presentation was proper, the case will be decided on merits including other legal points, if any. A.E./249/Lb.P Appeal accepted.