1979 PLP 110 (PLC)
Mir MUHAMMAD BALUCH Versus MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., THATTA
| Citation | 1979 PLP 110 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mir MUHAMMAD BALUCH Versus MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., THATTA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 110 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 110 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 110 (PLC) (Mir MUHAMMAD BALUCH Versus MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., THATTA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Zamirul Hasan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. Syed Zamirul Hasan for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25‑A, I. R. O. on the ground that grievance notice was not served. 2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. He was served with the charge‑sheet dated 31st January 1975, on 3rd February 1975. He submitted an explanation which was not found satis factory. An inquiry was held and he was found guilty of the misconduct. Consequently, he was dismissed from service on 26th February 1975. Subsequently, he approached the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 3. A preliminary objection was taken that the application was not maintainable for want of grievance notice. This objection was upheld on assess ment of the evidence which was tendered by the parties. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. 4. On perusal of record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I have no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer. His order is supported by cogent reasons. The learned Representa tive for the appellant is not able to assail the reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer or the conclusion reached by him. It has been fully estab lished that an attempt was made by the appellant to lead false evidence to meet the plea that grievance notice was served. It was alleged that a grievance notice dated 27th February 1975, bearing No. 331 was served by the General Secretary of the Union but the outward register showed that there was another letter which bore the same number sent on that date. Not only this, but in para 7 of the application made under section 25‑A, 1. R. O. the appellant had stated that he bad sent the grievance notice dated 18th February 1975, bearing No. 332. Furthermore, it was never disclosed at any earlier stage that the grievance notice was served. 5. In result I maintain the order passed by the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.