1988 P (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ZAHID Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT WORKSHOPS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHID Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT WORKSHOPS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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 P (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ZAHID Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT WORKSHOPS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Grievance petition‑ Presentation of‑‑Petition presented not before Presidng Officer of Labour Court but before official of Court‑‑Presentation would be proper if such official was authorised in that behalf by Presiding Officer‑ Petition presented to official of Court "A" who fixing date of hearing and then Presiding Officer of Court adjourning same to any other date‑‑Petition dismissed by Court "B" on grounds of improper presentation‑‑Petition having been presented initially in a different Court inviting of evidence, held, was necessary as to whether official receiving petition had been authorised by Presiding Officer in that behalf‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing petition set aside and case remanded to Labour Court for re‑decision of question of presentation after requisite evidence.
- Asmat Kamal for Appellant.
- Bashir Ahmad for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- S.A. Latif for Respondent No. 3
- Date of hearing: 19th May, 1986.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 1‑4‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected on the point of improper presentation.
2. Perusal of the file of the learned lower Court reveals that the grievance petition was presented in the office on 5‑7‑1984. The office checked it and reported that the grievance notice was within time and fixed the case for 8‑7‑1984. On the said date nobody appeared and the learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case to 11‑7‑1984 for preliminary arguments. On 11‑7‑1984 also nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant but the Court considered the case and finding it as fit for admission, admitted it. The appellant appeared in person thereafter on 10‑10‑1984 when the time for bringing the grievance petition had expired. The learned lower Court has held the presentation as improper for the reason that initially it was not presented before the learned Presiding Officer of the Court. There is no evidence if the learned Presiding Officer had authorised the official who had on 5‑7‑1984 received the grievance petition and had adjourned it to 8‑7‑1984. If the official had received the petition under the authority/ of the Court, the matter would be different. Since the grievance petition was not initially brought to the Labour Court No.3 but was brought to Labour Court No.2, the learned lower Court should have before finally deciding whether the presentation was proper or not, invited evidence on the point whether the official who had initially received the petition on 5‑7‑1984 in Labour Court No.2 had or had not been duly authorised by the learned Presiding Officer. If the grievance petition had been presented initially to Court No.3 which has rejected the petition, there could be scope to say that the receipt of the petition by the official was hot considered under authority. Since the petition was presented initially in a different Court, inviting' of evidence, as mentioned above, was necessary.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the case is sent back for redecision of the point of presentation of the petition in the light of the observations made above. If the learned lower Court finds that the presentation was proper, the case shall be decided on merits. A.E. /118/Lb.S Appeal accepted,