1984 PLP 1021 (PLC(CS))
ABDUR RASHID Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1021 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, FAISALABAD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1021 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1021 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1984 PLP 1021 (PLC(CS)) (ABDUR RASHID Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nawab Saeedullah for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 26th April, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) -- S. 25-A - Grievance petition - Limitation - Grievance notice remained unreplied-Petition filed before Labour Court much after lapse of two and half months from date of grievance notice, held, time-barred and not entertainable.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) -- S. 25-A - Grievance petition - Limitation - Grievance notice remained unreplied-Petition filed before Labour Court much after lapse of two and half months from date of grievance notice, held, time-barred and not entertainable. Nawab Saeedullah for Appellant. Date of hearing : 26th April, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 14th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that an accident took place on 2nd September, 1978 on account of the collusion between the bus driven by the appellant and another bus coming from the opposite side, as a result of which two passengers died on the spot and the bus driven by the appel lant, was damaged. The loss was calculated to Rs. 50,567.25. The appellant was charge-sheeted to which he gave reply. An enquiry was held against him, which culminated in his dismissal. His contention was that the charge-sheet was time-barred. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent was that the grievance petition was time-barred. The objection with regard to the charge-sheet being time-barred could be entertained if the appellant had proved that his petition was within time. He was dismissed on 29th June, 1980 as stated by him in his statement. The grievance notice was served by him on 7th July, 1980. Since no reply to the grievance notice was received by the appellant, he was required to bring the grievance petition upto 23rd September, 1980 but he brought the same, on 23rd October, 1980 and thus it was obviously time-barred. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Mehraj Din, the solitary witness, who appeared before the Enquiry Officer, was not the witness of the incident because he as stated by him had reached the place of occurrence after the buses had been removed from there. There fore, from his evidence it could not be proved that the accident took place due to the rash and negligence act of the appellant. Merits cannot be discussed, inasmuch as the very grievance petition was not within time. The question whether the charge-sheet was time-barred or not also cannot be taken up because the grievance petition is time-barred. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.