1981 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IDRIS Versus FAUJI SUGUR MILLS
| Citation | 1981 PLP 756 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IDRIS Versus FAUJI SUGUR MILLS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 756 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IDRIS Versus FAUJI SUGUR MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer through Advocate ‑‑ Not valid‑Grievance petition consequential to such notice‑‑‑Not maintainable.
- Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent.
- This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 23rd December, 1979, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition wherein he had alleged that his services had been illegally terminated on the bass of a forged resignation. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the grievance petition by Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that whereas under the law the appellant workman was required to serve the grievance notice on the employer himself, or through his Shop Steward or the C.B.A., the grievance notice was given through his Advocate. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (PLD 1980 SC 81), that grievance notice served by an Advocate on behalf of the client is not in conformity with requirement of law. As the service of the requisite notice is a precondition for the filing of the grievance petition, the appellant's grievance petition is clearly not maintainable. This position was frankly conceded by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the legal position, the appeal is dismissed on the ground that the grievance petition is not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. HYD‑64 of 1980, heard on 23rd September, 1980. ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice to employer through Advocate ‑‑ Not valid‑Grievance petition consequential to such notice‑‑‑Not maintainable. Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. P L D 1980 S C 81 rel. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd September, 1980. This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 23rd December, 1979, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition wherein he had alleged that his services had been illegally terminated on the bass of a forged resignation. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the grievance petition by Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that whereas under the law the appellant workman was required to serve the grievance notice on the employer himself, or through his Shop Steward or the C.B.A., the grievance notice was given through his Advocate. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (PLD 1980 SC 81), that grievance notice served by an Advocate on behalf of the client is not in conformity with requirement of law. As the service of the requisite notice is a precondition for the filing of the grievance petition, the appellant's grievance petition is clearly not maintainable. This position was frankly conceded by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the legal position, the appeal is dismissed on the ground that the grievance petition is not maintainable.