1987 PLP 160 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1987 PLP 160 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 160 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 160 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 160 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Wahid Bux for Appellant. Raees M. Mushtaq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1986. The instant appeal arises against the order of Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, and his impugned order is dated 17‑1‑1985. He has dismissed the grievance petition of Muhammad Yousuf, Conductor of S.R.T.C. Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case are quite unfortunate with a chequered history. Several grievance petitions were filed by this appellant and he was re‑instated on 1‑11‑1980 as per order of the Labour Court. He was then transferred to Sukkur. He never went to Sukkur and filed petitions against the transfer order. Subsequently, he came in this grievance petition for his re‑instatement.
3. The stand of the respondent was that he was re‑instated on 1‑11‑1980 as per order of the Labour Court and he was directed to report for duty at Sukkur. He was charge‑sheeted against his posting at Sukkur and was dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Admittedly, on re‑instatement in the year 1980, the appellant was transferred to Sukkur but he deliberately refused to report there. He questioned this transfer before the Labour Court but there was no result. It is undisputed fact that the appellant never reported for duty at Sukkur either after his re‑instatement or in the year 1980 or even after the dismissal of his transfer application in February 1982. He approached the Labour Court for the first time on 17‑12‑1983, namely, after one year and 11 months after dismissal of his transfer application. He has produced no proof of his approaching the respondent for duty at Sukkur. He has produced one grievance notice purported to have been sent on 17‑11‑1983, with a reply of the respondent, dated 3‑12‑1983, perhaps to make out a ground for bringing this grievance petition within the limitation. He admitted that he did not go to Sukkur to report for duty or to comply with the orders of transfer. It is correctly concluded by the Labour Court that the grievance application of the appellant is hopelessly time‑barred and so would not be maintainable.
5. I only touch this aspect of the case. His fresh grievance application is time‑barred and it is proved that he filed the grievance application after lapse of one year and eleven months. It may be observed that the appellant had never been fair and straight so he cannot expect B any relief from this Tribunal. The grievance petition, therefore, fails and the impugned order, dated 17‑1‑1985, is upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.