1986 PLP 695 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus CRESCENT FACTORIES Ltd., SAHIWAL and another
| Citation | 1986 PLP 695 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus CRESCENT FACTORIES Ltd., SAHIWAL and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 695 (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 1986 PLP 695 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 695 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus CRESCENT FACTORIES Ltd., SAHIWAL and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing; 22nd January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Presented by counsel‑ Petitioner appearing in person on next fixed date falling within limitation period‑‑Presentation, in circumstances, held, became proper on such date. Appellant in person. M. Asadullah Siddiqui far Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. M. Asadullah Siddiqui far Respondents. Date of hearing; 22nd January, 1986. The order, dated 24‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on account of improper presentation.
2. The grievance petition was presented by the counsel for the appellant on 22‑3‑1982 but on the next date i.e. 27‑4‑1982 the appellant appeared in person to pursue the case. In the written statement the respondent admitted that the grievance notice was dated 25‑2‑1982. This being so, the grievance petition could be presented within time; upto 19‑5‑1982. Since the appellant appeared in person on 27‑4‑1982 to pursue the case, the presentation became proper on the said date. The earned lower Court was, therefore, not justified in dismissing the petition on the plea of improper presentation.
3. As a result, the appeal is treated as revision and accepting it, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back for decision on merits. A.E. Revision accepted.