1989 PLP 940 (PLC(CS))
GHULAM SHABBIR Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP 940 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GHULAM SHABBIR Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 940 (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 1989 PLP 940 (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: 1989 PLP 940 (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM SHABBIR Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.
- Malik Hamid Mahmood for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Time‑barred grievance notice‑‑Petition not within prescribed period from date of notice‑‑Delay, neither explained nor application for condonation made‑‑Labour Court, m circumstances, held, was justified in dismissing petition as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Time‑barred grievance notice‑‑Petition not within prescribed period from date of notice‑‑Delay, neither explained nor application for condonation made‑‑Labour Court, m circumstances, held, was justified in dismissing petition as time‑barred. Syed Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant. Malik Hamid Mahmood for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th June, 1985. The decision dated 23‑3‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed as time barred. On merits the learned lower Court has however found that the appellant had a good case.
2. The facts are that the appellant was compulsorily retired from service on 19‑9‑1969. Before retirement he had been issued a charge‑sheet also. The relevant order is Exh. R.6 dated 20‑11‑1973. The order does not bear the signature of the appellant in token of information given to him about the retirement. No postal or A/D receipt was produced to show that the order of retirement was served upon the appellant. The case of the appellant was that he had learned about the retirement from the written statement filed in his suit for declaration to the effect that 'he was still in service of the respondent. The written statement was filed in June, 1973. The suit was dismissed on 6‑10‑1982 on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. On 19‑1‑1983 grievance notice was served. There is no application for condonation of delay. Even in the time spent in the civil Court is excluded although there appear no justification for it, even then the grievance notice was hopelessly time‑barred. The suit was dismissed on 6‑10‑1982 and from that date the time started running which expired on 5‑1‑1983 but the grievance notice was sent on 19‑1‑1983. As mentioned above no application for condonation of delay was given explaining the reasons for sending the grievance notice late. Even the grievance petition was time-barred from the date of issuance of the grievance nonce. Since the grievance notice was sent on 19‑1‑1983 the grievance petition could be brought up to 3‑4‑1983 within 2‑1/2 months but it was presented on 10‑4‑1983. There is no application for condonation of delay. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in dismissing the grievance petition as time‑barred. The learned counsel for the parties have not argued the merits of the case.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and dismissed the same. A.E./673/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.