1977 PLP 303 (PLC)
ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL. SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS, MULTAN
| Citation | 1977 PLP 303 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IVth Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mian Qureshi, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL. SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS, MULTAN |
| Primary Law | DECISION, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 303 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: DECISION, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 303 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IVth Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Mian Qureshi, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 303 (PLC) (ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus DIVISIONAL. SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Latif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Limitation ‑ Time spent on departmental appeal Condonable‑ Departmental appeal dismissed‑Time spent on mercy petition thereafter‑Not condonable. Appellant in person. This is an appeal filed by Atta Muhammad, Ex‑Watchman, P. W. R. Multan, against order dated, 9th December 1974, of the learned Junior Labour Court dismissing his petition for re‑instatement in service. The appellant was dismissed from service on 2nd April 1973 He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 10th July 1973. The petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed by the appellant on 28th May 1974. He filed an application on 26th November 1974 in the learned lower Court for the condonation of delay on the ground that as an illiterate person he was not aware of the obligations of law to move the Court in time which plea was rejected and his petition dismissed as time barred. In the present appeal the facts mentioned above have not been contro verted. However, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that after the departmental appeal was decided against him, he filed a revision petition to the General Manager, P. W. R. which was provided under the departmental rule and as it was rejected vide letter of the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R. Multan, dated, 9th April 1974, the petition filed on 28th May 1974 was within time. According to the relevant record the last petition of the appellant made to the department was not a revision petition but it was a mercy petition which was made over six months after the departmental appeal was dismissed. In such situation the condonation of delay could not be allowed to the appellant which if allowed would amount to an interference in departmental jurisdiction of the Railway authorities. The appeal therefore having no force is dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 353 of 1974, decided on 7th July, 1975. ‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Limitation ‑ Time spent on departmental appeal Condonable‑ Departmental appeal dismissed‑Time spent on mercy petition thereafter‑Not condonable. Appellant in person. Muhammad Latif for Respondent. This is an appeal filed by Atta Muhammad, Ex‑Watchman, P. W. R. Multan, against order dated, 9th December 1974, of the learned Junior Labour Court dismissing his petition for re‑instatement in service. The appellant was dismissed from service on 2nd April 1973 He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 10th July 1973. The petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed by the appellant on 28th May 1974. He filed an application on 26th November 1974 in the learned lower Court for the condonation of delay on the ground that as an illiterate person he was not aware of the obligations of law to move the Court in time which plea was rejected and his petition dismissed as time barred. In the present appeal the facts mentioned above have not been contro verted. However, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that after the departmental appeal was decided against him, he filed a revision petition to the General Manager, P. W. R. which was provided under the departmental rule and as it was rejected vide letter of the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R. Multan, dated, 9th April 1974, the petition filed on 28th May 1974 was within time. According to the relevant record the last petition of the appellant made to the department was not a revision petition but it was a mercy petition which was made over six months after the departmental appeal was dismissed. In such situation the condonation of delay could not be allowed to the appellant which if allowed would amount to an interference in departmental jurisdiction of the Railway authorities. The appeal therefore having no force is dismissed.