1977 PLP 279 (PLC)
CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus KHAISTA KHAN
| Citation | 1977 PLP 279 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind, |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus KHAISTA KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 279 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 279 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind, bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 279 (PLC) (CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus KHAISTA KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑Limitation ‑‑ Grievance notice served after seven months of accrual of cause of action and delay sought to be explained on ground of appeal having been filed and subsequently, a mercy petition on rejection of appeal‑No provision of law, held, allows extension of limitation period on account of pendency of mercy petition‑Time at most could be allowed up to decision of appeal ‑Grievance notice having been sent four and a half months after decision of appeal, application under S. 25‑A held time‑barred and dismissed. Sirajul Haque Qureshi for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 25th October 1976. This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent allowing the appellant to hold fresh enquiry. 2. The respondent was a Conductor of a bus and was said to have realized fair from the passengers without issuing tickets. He was charge sheeted and an enquiry was held. He was found guilty and show‑cause notice was given to him. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service. He approached Labour Court under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 3. One of the objections taken by the appellant was that the application made under section 25‑A, was time‑barred. This plea was rejected and it was held that proper opportunity was not allowed to the respondent to defend himself. Consequently, the impugned order was passed. 4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am of the view that the Labour Court erred in holding that the application was not time‑barred. The dismissal order was passed on 3rd October, 1973, whereas the grievance notice was served on 8th May, 1974 and the application under section 25‑A was made on 1st June, 1974. According to section 25‑A the grievance notice had to be served within three months of the cause of action. Obviously in the present case the grievance notice was served after seven months. Delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the respondent had filed an appeal which was decided on 24th December, 1973 and thereafter, filed a mercy petition which was rejected on 5tb April, 1974. So according to the Labour Court period of limitation started from 5th April, 1974 when the mercy petition was rejected. I am unable to uphold this view. There was no provision for mercy petition. At the most the time could be allowed up to the decision of the appeal. But the appeal was decided on 24th December, 1973 and still the grievance notice was sent after about four and a half months. 5. In the circumstances I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. The application made under section 25‑A stands dismissed.