1977 PLP 407 (PLC)
ZAHID HUSSAIN AKHTAR Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT No. 4 AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1977 PLP 407 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh. Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZAHID HUSSAIN AKHTAR Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT No. 4 AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 407 (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 1977 PLP 407 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh. Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 407 (PLC) (ZAHID HUSSAIN AKHTAR Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT No. 4 AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latif Jalili for Appellant.
- S. A. Sarwana for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition proved to have boon made on 6‑9‑1975‑Application under S. 25‑A made on 11‑2‑1976‑Held, rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
Latif Jalili for Appellant. S. A. Sarwana for Respondent. The application made under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground of limitation.
2. The service of the appellant was terminated on 3‑9‑75 by the Medical Officer. Consequently the appellant made representations dated 6‑9‑75, 15‑10‑75 and 31‑12‑75 to the Chairman of the Sind Employees' Social Security Institution but nothing was done. He is said to have served grievance petition on 26‑11‑75 and filed the application to Labour Court on 11‑2‑76.
3. The Labour Court, treating the representation dated 6‑9‑75 as grievance petition, held that the application made under section 25‑A of I. R. O. was time‑barred.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid, three representations were by way of appeals and, therefore, could not b treated to be grievance petition, but the one made on 26‑11‑75 was the grievance petition which was material for the purpose of limitation. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that there is no provision for appeal in the Social Security Ordinance. Thus the representation made on 6‑9‑75 was in fact the grievance petition made to higher authority. In this situation, the application made to the Labour Court was time barred and was rightly dismissed.