1984 PLP 621 (PLC(CS))
CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE Versus S. M. SALEEM
| Citation | 1984 PLP 621 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE Versus S. M. SALEEM |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 621 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 621 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 621 (PLC(CS)) (CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE Versus S. M. SALEEM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Mahmood Hussain for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. 25‑A (I)‑Grievance notice‑Issued by counsel and not by workman himself‑Invalid. PLD 1980 S C 80rel. Ali Raza for Appellant. Mian Mahmood Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing : 28th April, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 19th March, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be paid full wages for the period of suspension. Further, direction was issued to fix the pay of the respondent by adding increments to which he would have been entitled if he had not been suspended.
2. On a short ground the appeal can be accepted and i. e. that the grievance notice was invalid, inasmuch as it was issued by the counsel for the respondent and not the respondent himself. The requirement of section 25‑A (t) is that the grievance notice be given by the workman himself or it may be sent through his shop steward or C. B. A. There is no mention of the fact that a grievance notice can be given by a lawyer on behalf of the workman. It has been observed in P L D 1980 S C 80 that the grievance notice given by the lawyer is invalid, inasmuch as the direction is that it be given by the workman himself or it may be given through shop steward or C. B. A. It has been further observed that where the law provides a mode in which an act may be done, it should be done in that mode and in no other mode. I, therefore, hold that the notice is invalid. Since the service of grievance notice is prerequisite for giving a grievance petition and the provisions in this respect are mandatory, the grievance petition was incompetent. I, accord ingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned trial Judge, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent. A. E.