1995 PLP 360 (PLC)
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD MUNEER
| Citation | 1995 PLP 360 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD MUNEER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 360 (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 1995 PLP 360 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 360 (PLC) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD MUNEER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munib Khan for Appellant.
- MA. Hassan Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 1995.
- 2. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Pakistan Railways that the original case having been dismissed as withdrawn without any condition and without any permission to file a fresh case the second case cannot be filed on the same cause of action. It has also been argued that the second case being late by one year from the cause of action is barred by limitation even under section 25‑A of the IRO. It has also been argued that the respondent after the dismissal of the first case was asking for re‑appointment and not reinstatement.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Earlier grievance petition filed by employee having been dismissed as withdrawn without any condition and without any permission to file a fresh case, second grievance petition filed on same cause of action which was fled after about one year from dismissal of earlier petition, was not maintainable being barred by limitation.
Judgment & Decree
Munib Khan for Appellant. MA. Hassan Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1995. The respondent a Railway Ticket Collector was removed from service on the charge of selling used tickets for Rs.70. He filed his grievance application before the Labour Court. Pending the application he filed an application for withdrawal of the case under section 25‑A of the IRO and the Labour Court passed the order "Applicant present in person. Application dismissed as withdrawn at his request unconditionally". This order was passed by the Presiding Officer on 22‑1‑1991. On the same day the respondent made an application to the Divisional Superintendent, Railway that he had withdrawn case from the Court he may therefore be allowed to resume duty. The respondent then waited for about one year and thereafter he again filed a fresh application under section 25‑A of the IRO with respect to the same cause of action. This fresh application was allowed by the Labour Court and it was ordered that the respondent be reinstated in service with all the back benefits. The appellant Pakistan Railways has then preferred this appeal against the said order.
2. It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Pakistan Railways that the original case having been dismissed as withdrawn without any condition and without any permission to file a fresh case the second case cannot be filed on the same cause of action. It has also been argued that the second case being late by one year from the cause of action is barred by limitation even under section 25‑A of the IRO. It has also been argued that the respondent after the dismissal of the first case was asking for re‑appointment and not reinstatement.
3. The second application under section 25‑A of IRO could only be filed if the application was within time as provided under this section itself. The maximum period of limitation provided is 30 days and the second application is therefore barred by limitation, nor can it be said that the refusal by the Railway to make a fresh appointment would give the respondent a fresh cause of action keeping in view the promise originally made to re‑appoint him if the case was withdrawn. For the purpose of re‑appointment the respondent ceased to be a worker and section 25‑A of the IRO no longer applies in his case. The Labour Court could not therefore come to his rescue for the second occasion. The fresh application under section 25‑A of the IRO is not therefore maintainable and the order of the learned Labour Court is without jurisdiction. The order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./2420/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.