1986 PLP 657 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN and another Versus MANZOOR AHMAD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 657 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN and another Versus MANZOOR AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 657 (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 1986 PLP 657 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 657 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN and another Versus MANZOOR AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad lqbal Khan for Appellants.
- H.R. Haider for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Stand of respondent that petition presented by Lawyer‑‑Stand not admitted by petitioner‑ Petitioner, in circumstances, held, to be allowed opportunity of evidence to show that he was present when petition presented‑‑Order of Labour Court rejecting petition on grounds of improper presentation without opportunity of evidence was not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Stand of respondent that petition presented by Lawyer‑‑Stand not admitted by petitioner‑ Petitioner, in circumstances, held, to be allowed opportunity of evidence to show that he was present when petition presented‑‑Order of Labour Court rejecting petition on grounds of improper presentation without opportunity of evidence was not sustainable. Muhammad lqbal Khan for Appellants. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1985. In the above captioned appeal a miscellaneous application has been lodged by the appellants for the rejection of the grievance petition on the allegation that it was presented by the lawyer and not by the respondent himself. The respondent has in reply to the said application not admitted that the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer. It has been argued that the respondent was present alongwith the counsel on the date of presentation of the grievance petition. No doubt, in the order, dated 8‑7‑1982 when the grievance petition was presented, the presence of the respondent is not recorded but since the respondent has denied the contention of the appellants made in the miscellaneous application that the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer alone, without giving him opportunity to establish that he was present at the time of the presentation of the grievance petition, no final opinion can be formed.
2. However, the objection that since no such plea was taken in the written statement and in the memo of appeal, it cannot be taken in a miscellaneous application, is not acceptable. If in reality the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer alone, no proper grievance petition was pending before the learned lower Court and thus the respondent could not be granted the relief prayed for in the said petition. Since opportunity of producing evidence is to be granted to the parties on the point of presentation of the grievance petition, the case is to be remanded.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded with the direction that it be decided afresh after giving finding if the grievance petition was properly presented or not. A. E. Appeal accepted.