1978 PLP 431 (PLC)
ZEBA TEXTILE MILLS Versus GHULAM HAIDER AND 5 OTHERS
| Citation | 1978 PLP 431 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZEBA TEXTILE MILLS Versus GHULAM HAIDER AND 5 OTHERS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 431 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 431 (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: 1978 PLP 431 (PLC) (ZEBA TEXTILE MILLS Versus GHULAM HAIDER AND 5 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Izhar Ahmed for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. Razaq for Appellant. Izhar Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th July 1973. These are appeals against the order of the Labour Court allowing the application made by the respondents under section 5-A, I. R. O. and ordering their re-instatement with back benefits.
2. The respondents were in the permanent employment of the appellant. In June 1976 they were not allowed to work on account of shortage of raw material with an assurance that they would be allowed to resume their duties on 16th August 1976. But when on that date they went to the mill, they were again not permitted to work. Consequently, they served grievance notices and approached the Labour 3Court by snaking applications under section 25-A, I. R. O.
3. The applications were resisted and various grounds were taken. One of the ground was that the applications were time-barred and, therefore, not maintainable.
4. Evidence, was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court passed the impugned order without deciding the question of limitation.
5. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant urged before me that, although, the plea of limitation was taken yet it was not decided by the Labour Court and, therefore, an illegality was committed. I entirely agree with this contention. Point of limitation was 7naterisl and could not 't have been disregarded or ignored. It was the duty of the Labour Court to have decided the plea of limitation one way or the other. In view off this, I propose to remand the case without dealing with the merits of the case and other objections, which may be raised by either party. 6. 1n result I allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Labour Court for deciding the question of limitation and then disposal of the case on the basis of the finding on that question wish to make It clear that it will be open to the parties to re-agitate their pleas with regard to the merits of the case in case any fresh appeal has been filed by either party after the disposal of the case on the basis of the finding on the question of limitation.