1988 PLP 833 (PLC(CS))
BASHIR MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 833 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | BASHIR MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 833 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 833 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 833 (PLC(CS)) (BASHIR MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant.
- Nasir Saeed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑ ‑-‑S.170‑‑Delegation of powers‑‑Mayor is authorised, with previous sanction. of House, to delegate all or any of his powers under the Ordinance or Rules or bye‑laws but not such powers as are delegated to him‑‑Dismissal of employee within competence of Mayor‑‑No resolution passed by House of Corporation i.e. Local Council, authorising Mayor to delegate such powers to Deputy Mayor‑‑Order of dismissal passed by Deputy Mayor, held, was rightly challenged as invalid. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Delay of about a month‑‑Medical certificate not specifically mentioning that appellant remained under treatment of Doctor issuing such certificate and Tribunal reaching conclusion that such certificate was false‑ Condonation, in circumstances, not allowed and appeal dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 7‑1‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the inquiry held against the appellant was illegal, inasmuch as the evidence of no witness was recorded as admitted by the inquiry officer who appeared as RW‑
1. The order of dismissal was challenged on this ground also that the 'Mayor was competent but the order of e dismissal was passed by the Deputy Mayor. It has also been argued that for delegating the powers resolution is to be passed but no resolution has been produced. The delegation of powers is Exh.R.9 which was done under section 170 of the Punjab Local Council Ordinance, 1979. Section 170 does not authorise the Mayor to delegate the powers. It authorises firstly the Government to delegate its powers to any officer. The Local Council has been allowed to delegate its powers to its Chairman or a Sub‑Committee or any of its officers or members and Chairman has been allowed with the previous sanction of the Local Council to delegate all or any of his powers under the Ordinance or the Rules or bye‑laws, not being powers delegated to him, to any member of the Local Council or any of its officers. The Mayor is not mentioned in the section. But the appeal fails on the ground that it is hopelessly time‑barred and no reasonable ground has been given for condonation of delay. The ground is of illness. The medical certificate is attached which is dated 20‑3‑1988. The certificate does not show that the appellant remained under the treatment of Dr. Asif Qadir Mir, who issued the certificate. The certificate reads as under:‑ "Certified that Mr. Bashir Masih son of Bellow Masih is suffering from Sciatica left hip. He is advised complete bed rest from 20‑2‑1988 to 11‑3‑1988. He is advised to see me on 11‑3‑1988." It is not mentioned on what date the appellant had consulted the doctor. How the, appellant could be advised to see the doctor again on 11‑3‑1988 when the certificate containing such an advice was issued on 20‑3‑1988. It is also not mentioned on what date the disease started. The other certificate is of 11‑3‑1988 to the effect that the appellant was fit to resume duty. It is further strange that in the certificate dated 20‑3‑1988 it was mentioned that the appellant was ill, whereas nine days before that on 11‑3‑1988 the same doctor declared him fit for duty. It is evident that both the documents are false and do not help the appellant. The appeal was presented on 12‑3‑1988. The date of the impugned decision is 7‑1‑1988. Application for copy was made on 18‑1‑1988 and the copy was delivered to him on 9‑2‑1988. The appeal, therefore, is time‑barred.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as time‑barred. A.E./529/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.