1982 PLP 920 (PLC(CS))
RAEESUDDIN Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.
| Citation | 1982 PLP 920 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | RAEESUDDIN Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 920 (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 1982 PLP 920 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 920 (PLC(CS)) (RAEESUDDIN Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Ghani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1981.
- The appellant, who was employed as a cashier in the respondent bank at Karachi, was dismissed from service with effect from 6th January, 1981 on the charge of un‑authorisedly remaining absent from duty since 18th October, 1980. The dismissal orders were passed on the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found the said charge established against the appel lant. The dismissal orders were ‑ challenged by the appellant through a grievance petition filed by him before the learned First Labour Court. The grievance petition, however, was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the appellant had failed to give the required grievance notice to his employer. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing on the ground that though the grievance notice, dated 5th February, 1980 served by the appellant on the bank, could not be con sidered to be the requisite notice for the purpose of section 25‑A, 1. R. O. as the said notice was not given by the appellant but was 'given through an Advocate, it appears, that the appellant had submitted a departmental appeal to the authorities which could conceivably be treated as the requisite grievance notice.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑To be served upon employer and not upon final appellate authority‑Representation to President of Bank‑Not treated as a grievance notice. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑To be served upon employer and not upon final appellate authority‑Representation to President of Bank‑Not treated as a grievance notice. Appellant in person. Mahmood A. Ghani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th October, 1981. The appellant, who was employed as a cashier in the respondent bank at Karachi, was dismissed from service with effect from 6th January, 1981 on the charge of un‑authorisedly remaining absent from duty since 18th October, 1980. The dismissal orders were passed on the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found the said charge established against the appel lant. The dismissal orders were ‑ challenged by the appellant through a grievance petition filed by him before the learned First Labour Court. The grievance petition, however, was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the appellant had failed to give the required grievance notice to his employer. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing on the ground that though the grievance notice, dated 5th February, 1980 served by the appellant on the bank, could not be con sidered to be the requisite notice for the purpose of section 25‑A,
1. R. O. as the said notice was not given by the appellant but was 'given through an Advocate, it appears, that the appellant had submitted a departmental appeal to the authorities which could conceivably be treated as the requisite grievance notice. 2. 1 have heard the appellant, who appeared in person and Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, who represented the respondent bank.
3. Although there is on the record of the learned Labour Court, a letter, dated 24th March, 1981 from the respondent Bank to the appellant, informing him that his departmental appeal dated llth March, 1981 addressed to the President had been duly received but was rejected as time‑barred, neither a copy of the `departmental appeal has been filed nor is there any indication as to the contents of the said application. The said letter does not even indicate that the departmental appeal was against the termination of services of the appellant or was in respect of some other matters. Besides, the grievance notice should be served upon the employer and not upon the final appellate authority. There is, thus is no tangible evidence on the record from which it could reasonably be a inferred that the appellant had given within the prescribed period, the re quisite notice to the employer. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.