1987 PLP 684 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD ANWAR
| Citation | 1987 PLP 684 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD ANWAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 684 (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 1987 PLP 684 (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: 1987 PLP 684 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD ANWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Qadir for Appellant.
- Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Adjudication by Labour Court‑ Grievance notice, whether served or not left undecided‑‑Labour Courts, held, have no jurisdiction to ajudicate upon real dispute without grievance notice having been served by petitioner‑‑Plea raised in' written statement that no grievance notice had been served but Labour Court leaving point undecided‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition against dismissal from service set aside in appeal by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for redecision after deciding whether grievance notice had been served or not‑ Respondent worker, however was directed to remain on duty till re‑decision by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Qadir for Appellant. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1986. The decision dated 13‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7. Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. The facts are that the respondent went on four months' sanctioned leave for the period from 29‑1‑1983 to 28‑5‑1983. He is alleged to have applied for extension of the leave for one year which was refused. He made another application for leave on 12‑6‑1983. It was rejected and information was sent but it came back undelivered. He vide Ex. R.6 requested for being given medical aid. He was informed vide Ex. R‑7 asking him to appear before the Railways Doctor but the said letter too came back unserved vide report Ex.R‑8 as he could not be found. Charge‑sheet was sent which too came back undelivered.
3. In the written statement objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that no grievance notice had been served. The respondent produced some evidence but the learned lower Court left the point undecided. If the point is taken up and decided in appeal, the unsuccessful party may loose right of appeal. So the case is liable t be remanded. Needless to say that the question whether a grievance notice had been served or not is important as without the service of such notice Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the real dispute between the parties.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded for redecision after deciding the point whether the grievance notice had been served or not. It is further ordered that the respondent would remain on duty till the learned lower Court redecides the case. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower Court on 12‑10‑1986. Nemo for the appellant. Respondent with Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, representative. A.E./328/Lb. P. Appeal accepted