1988 PLP 492 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus EJAZ AHMAD KHAN
| Citation | 1988 PLP 492 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus EJAZ AHMAD KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 492 (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 1988 PLP 492 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1988 PLP 492 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus EJAZ AHMAD KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 10th July, 1985.,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance ' petition, presentation of‑‑Locus standi‑‑Order of Labour Court challenged before Appellate Tribunal on plea that petition was presented by counsel and not by petitioner himself and same was not maintainable‑‑Contention of employee that though petition was filed by counsel but he himself had been appearing in person before Labour Court which fact could not be recorded by mistake‑‑Controversy involving facts depending upon evidence‑‑No objection to maintainability of petition was raised before Labour Court‑‑Appellate Tribunal, refraining from allowing opportunity of evidence before itself in order to keep alive opportunity of appeal to unsuccessful party and remanding case to Labour Court for decision on specific point after opportunity of evidence to parties. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 10th July, 1985., The decision dated 23‑5‑1984 recorded by the ‑learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has‑been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for being confirmed as Section Controller was accepted.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant instead of arguing the appeal on the points decided by the learned lower Court, has made a miscellaneous application raising objection that no proper grievance petition was before the learned lower Court, inasmuch as it was not presented by the respondent himself and had rather been presented by his counsel. NLR 1985 Labour 36 has been relied upon wherein by analogy P L D 1980 S. C. 80 has been applied. It was held in the Supreme Court's ruling that grievance notice sent by the lawyer was not valid. The miscellaneous application of the appellant has been opposed by the respondent who has pleaded that he had been appearing in person before the learned lower Court but by mistake his appearance was not recorded. The contention made by the respondent can be proved by him, and disproved by the appellant by producing evidence. Since the appellant did not raise such an objection before the learned lower Court, no evidence was led by the parties. Both the counsel of the parties have agreed that the case be remanded for adjudication of the point.
3. If the point is decided by this Tribunal after allowing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the unsuccessful party will lose right of appeal. So setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for fresh decision after the decision of the point if the petitioner was present on the date of presentation of the grievance petition and either he himself presented the petition or in his presence the petition was presented by his counsel. A.E.11373/Lb.P Orders accordingly.