1984 PLP 760 (PLC(CS))
Mst. SARDARAN BIBI Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA
| Citation | 1984 PLP 760 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Gharoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Mst. SARDARAN BIBI Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 760 (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 1984 PLP 760 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Gharoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 760 (PLC(CS)) (Mst. SARDARAN BIBI Versus CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant.
- Date of hearing o 20th December, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 65 (B)‑Grievance notice on employer ‑ Service within three months of impugned order‑Provisions mandatory Notice served much after expiry of limitation period ‑Condonation prayer on grounds that petitioner had been making verbal requests for reinstatement and was promised to be reinstated‑Such grounds, held, not sufficient for condonation of delay ‑ Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 65 (B)‑Grievance notice on employer ‑ Service within three months of impugned order‑Provisions mandatory Notice served much after expiry of limitation period ‑Condonation prayer on grounds that petitioner had been making verbal requests for reinstatement and was promised to be reinstated‑Such grounds, held, not sufficient for condonation of delay ‑ Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court. Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant. Date of hearing o 20th December, 1982. This appeal emanates from the decision dated 21st August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstate ment in service was dismissed as time‑barred.
2. The order of dismissal was passed in March, 1981 but the date of the grievance notice is 30th Maya 1982. According to the provision of section 25‑A, the appellant was required to serve the grievance notice within three months of the date of his dismissal which ended in January, 1981, since he gave grievance notice after the lapse of about I1 months, it was hopelessly time‑barred. She gave application for condonation of delay under section 65 (B) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but the grounds given are not cogent, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the learned lower Court. The grounds are that the appellant had been asking the Town Committee authorities for reinstatement and they promised to reinstate her but later on flatly refused. She does not say that she brought any appeal or representation, nor any copy of any appeal or representa tion was brought on the lower Court record. Even if it be believed that she had made verbal request, it was not sufficient for condonation of A delay. She should have given the grievance notice within three months. The provisions of section 25‑A are mandatory. Her petition was therefore, rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
3. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. A. 9, Appeal dismissed.