1989 PLP 592 (PLC)
AMIR KHAN Versus MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGARH
| Citation | 1989 PLP 592 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan: Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AMIR KHAN Versus MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGARH |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 592 (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 1989 PLP 592 (PLC)?
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 592 (PLC) (AMIR KHAN Versus MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGARH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Ali Khan for Appellant. .
- Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gillani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice, sent to appellate authority or any officer covered by ' definition of employer and having some control over workman concerned, a legal notice‑‑Notice sent to Director instead of Manager who passed impugned order-- No evidence that such Director was either appellate authority or had some control over aggrieved workman‑‑Held: Such notice could not be considered as a legal grievance notice.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice, sent to appellate authority or any officer covered by ' definition of employer and having some control over workman concerned, a legal notice‑‑Notice sent to Director instead of Manager who passed impugned order-- No evidence that such Director was either appellate authority or had some control over aggrieved workman‑‑Held: Such notice could not be considered as a legal grievance notice. Ahmad Ali Khan for Appellant. . Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gillani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 8‑1‑1987 recorded by the learned Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that it was time‑barred.
2. There are three grievance notices on the record. The learned Labour Court relying upon the grievance notice Exh. P‑4 held that the petition was time -barred. The said notice was sent to the Director and not to the Manager, who had passed the order of removal from service. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this Tribunal had held the view that notice sent to higher authority is legal therefore the learned lower Court has rightly held that the petition from the date of said notice was time‑barred. Grievance notice sent to the appellate authority or to an officer who is covered by the definition of employer and who had some control over the worker concerned can be a legal notice as required under section 25‑A, I.R.O., but learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out any material on the record to show that the Director is the appellate authority or that he has some control over the appellant. Rather the learned counsel says that there is no provision of departmental appeal according to the rules of the mills. Apart from it the notice R‑4 does not bear any date. In the impugned judgment the learned Labour Court has observed that grievance notice R‑4 was received by the management on 19‑6‑1984'but there is no evidence on the point. The solitary witness RW‑1 even did not make reference to this notice in his statement. Even from the petitioner the date of R‑4 was not inquired. The learned Labour Court has wrongly held that petition was time barred. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that from the date of ‑first grievance notice the petition is time‑barred. RW‑1 stated that first grievance notice was given on 31‑3‑1984 and that the appellant was dismissed on 3‑6‑1984 and it is thus clear that said grievance notice was not against the dismissal order.
3. As a result appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded with the direction that the question of limitation be decided again, if the learned Labour Court holds that the petition is within time the case be decided on merits. A.E./634/Lb. P Appeal accepted.