1989 PLP 936 (PLC)
FIDA HUSSAIN and 69 others Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1989 PLP 936 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | VI Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Saleem Aftab Shaikh, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | FIDA HUSSAIN and 69 others Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 936 (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 936 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the VI Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Saleem Aftab Shaikh, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 936 (PLC) (FIDA HUSSAIN and 69 others Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioners.
- M.G. Saadullah Mumtaz, Ikram UI Haq and Nasir Saeed Shaikh for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice served prior to date of impugned order when there was no cause of action‑‑Consequential grievance petition, held, was not competent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice served prior to date of impugned order when there was no cause of action‑‑Consequential grievance petition, held, was not competent. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioners. M.G. Saadullah Mumtaz, Ikram UI Haq and Nasir Saeed Shaikh for Respondent. This order will dispose of an application for stay as well as main petition moved on behalf of 70 petitioners. Their case is that they were reinstated by an office order dated 2‑3‑1989 but later on by an order dated 5‑3‑1989 it was directed that only 4 persons would be reinstated. In this case the petition was filed on 6‑3‑1989 but the order which is sought to be challenged was passed on 5‑3‑1989. The grievance notice was admittedly sent on 4‑3‑1989. This means that the grievance notice was sent prior to the impugned order being passed. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petition is not pre‑mature because it was filed on 6‑3‑1989 and with the passage of time the defect if any in the filing of the petition would be cured. The petition has been filed through C.B.A. union which means that at least 7 days time must be given to the management to send a reply of the grievance notice.
2. The counsel for the respondent has put in a written statement to the stay application. It is stated therein that the original order dated 2‑3‑1989 is a forgery and that the petition is not competent because the grievance notice was sent earlier. In Fida Hussain's case Mr. Iqbal Hussain has also appeared before me. He is District Manager of the P.R.T.C.. I showed the order dated 2‑3‑1989 and he replied that there was no such order in original with him and that his signature on the document is forged. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that an F.I.R. has been lodged in respect of the forgery. 1t is on the record as Annexure R.6.
3. I have heard arguments of both sides and have attended to the record. According to section 25‑A, I.R.O. a worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arose. In this case, the cause of action arose on 5‑3‑1989. Therefore, on the date that the grievance notice was served, no cause of action had arisen in favour of the petitioners. This petition is therefore not competent in law, which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners may however, if so advised file a fresh i petition if otherwise permitted by law. A.E./667/Lb. P Petition dismissed.