PLC(CS) 1996

1996 PLP 533 (PLC(CS))

TANVEER HUSSAIN Versus Messrs KARACHI GYMKHANA through Secretary

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeal No. KAR-515 of 1995, decided on 29th January, 1996.
Honorable Judges
Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1996 PLP 533 (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal
Parties TANVEER HUSSAIN Versus Messrs KARACHI GYMKHANA through Secretary
Primary Law Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 533 (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 1996 PLP 533 (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 533 (PLC(CS)) (TANVEER HUSSAIN Versus Messrs KARACHI GYMKHANA through Secretary). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Representation

  • M; Siddique Malik, Representative for Appellant.
  • Date of hearing: 29th January, 1996.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 25-A

Grievance petition

Maintainability

Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him charge-sheet and holding domestic enquiry on allegation that he misbehaved and insulted lady member of club

Employee despite having knowledge about charge-sheet, enquiry and his dismissal from service, refused. to accept dismissal letter sent to him by registered post on his last address

Deliberate refusal to accept dismissal order amounted to good service of dismissal order, grievance notice sent by employee after six months of his' dismissal, thus would be time-barred

Grievance petition filed by employee against his dismissal, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court being not maintainable.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him charge‑sheet and holding domestic enquiry on allegation that he misbehaved and insulted lady member of club‑‑‑Employee despite having knowledge about charge‑sheet, enquiry and his dismissal from service, refused. to accept dismissal letter sent to him by registered post on his last address‑‑‑Deliberate refusal to accept dismissal order amounted to good service of dismissal order, grievance notice sent by employee after six months of his' dismissal, thus would be time‑barred‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employee against his dismissal, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court being not maintainable. M; Siddique Malik, Representative for Appellant. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dismissing` the grievance petition of the appellant for re instatement and back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed as Steward in the Karachi Gymkhana on 1‑2‑1989. He was charge‑sheeted and suspended on 17‑3 1991 for having misbehaved and insulted a lady member of the Club. After domestic enquiry he was dismissed on 14‑4‑1991. The appellant had knowledge about the charge‑sheet, enquiry and dismissal, though he refused to accept the dismissal letter. It was sent by registered post on his last address but it was returned with the remarks that the addressee had left. The learned Labour Court found that the grievance notice was late by six months. The grievance petition was therefore dismissed as time‑barred. Deliberate refusal to accept the dismissal order amounts to good service of dismissal order. The grievance notice after six months of dismissal would, therefore, be time‑barred under section 25‑A of the I.R.O.

3. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and his appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./39/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.