1986 PLP 462 (PLC)
MANZOOR‑UL‑HAQ Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 462 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | MANZOOR‑UL‑HAQ Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 462 (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 1986 PLP 462 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 462 (PLC) (MANZOOR‑UL‑HAQ Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahboob Alam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition presented by counsel‑‑Improper presentation‑‑Petitioner appearing in person within limitation period‑ Presentation, in circumstances, held, became proper and order of Labour Court dismissing petition on grounds of improper presentation set aside by appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition presented by counsel‑‑Improper presentation‑‑Petitioner appearing in person within limitation period‑ Presentation, in circumstances, held, became proper and order of Labour Court dismissing petition on grounds of improper presentation set aside by appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for decision on merits. Mahboob Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985. The decision, dated 24‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was not presented by him in person but by his counsel.
2. This is true that originally the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer on 29‑4‑1985 but since the appellant appeared in person and pursued the case before the expiry of the period of limitation meant for bringing the grievance petition, the presentation became proper. The appellant appeared in person on 20‑5‑1985 and pursued the case. In the grievance petition in para. 10 it is alleged that the grievance notice was sent on 27‑3‑1985, so the grievance petition could be lodged upto 10‑6‑1986 but the appellant appeared in person on 20‑5‑1985. So the presentation by the appellant on 20‑5‑1985 became proper and the petition could not be dismissed.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for decision on merits. A.B. Appeal accepted.