1986 PLP 631 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE. Versus AHMAD ALI
| Citation | 1986 PLP 631 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE. Versus AHMAD ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑, JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 631 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑, JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 631 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 631 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE. Versus AHMAD ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Appellant. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Petition presented by representative‑‑Record not indicating that petitioner himself was present before Labour Court within limitation period‑‑Fact of petitioner's presence requiring evidence‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition in circumstances, Set aside and case remanded to Labour Court for redecision after determining whether presentation was valid. A miscellaneous application has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the grievance petition was not properly presented as it was lodged in the Court by the representative and not by the respondent himself. The respondent has contested the application in his reply contending that he had himself presented the grievance petition but by mistake his attendance had not been marked. The order has been perused. The word 'petitioner' in abridged form is written and above the said word and the word 'present' the word "representative" is put. Neither there are apostrophes on the end of the word 'petitioner' showing that only the respondent's representative was present nor the word 'with' can be found to show that the respondent as well as his representative both were present. On the next date i.e. 20‑12‑1983 the word 'petitioner' in abridged form (PETER) is written above the word 'Mr. and S.A Latif' and appears to have been cancelled. It is, therefore, doubtful if the respondent was not present in person on 8‑11‑1983 when the grievance petition was presented and on 20‑12‑1983 when there was still period of limitation available for the presentation of the grievance petition as the grievance notice was sent on 18‑10‑1983. The matter, therefore, cannot be decided without inviting evidence.
2. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for redecision after the determination of the fact whether the presentation of the grievance petition was valid or not. The parties are directed to appear before the learned‑Labour Court on 15‑2‑1986. A. E. Appeal accepted.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No.LHR‑206 of 1985, decided on 4th February, 1986. ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Petition presented by representative‑‑Record not indicating that petitioner himself was present before Labour Court within limitation period‑‑Fact of petitioner's presence requiring evidence‑‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition in circumstances, Set aside and case remanded to Labour Court for redecision after determining whether presentation was valid. Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Appellant. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1986. A miscellaneous application has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the grievance petition was not properly presented as it was lodged in the Court by the representative and not by the respondent himself. The respondent has contested the application in his reply contending that he had himself presented the grievance petition but by mistake his attendance had not been marked. The order has been perused. The word 'petitioner' in abridged form is written and above the said word and the word 'present' the word "representative" is put. Neither there are apostrophes on the end of the word 'petitioner' showing that only the respondent's representative was present nor the word 'with' can be found to show that the respondent as well as his representative both were present. On the next date i.e. 20‑12‑1983 the word 'petitioner' in abridged form (PETER) is written above the word 'Mr. and S.A Latif' and appears to have been cancelled. It is, therefore, doubtful if the respondent was not present in person on 8‑11‑1983 when the grievance petition was presented and on 20‑12‑1983 when there was still period of limitation available for the presentation of the grievance petition as the grievance notice was sent on 18‑10‑1983. The matter, therefore, cannot be decided without inviting evidence.
2. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for redecision after the determination of the fact whether the presentation of the grievance petition was valid or not. The parties are directed to appear before the learned‑Labour Court on 15‑2‑1986. A. E. Appeal accepted.