1986 PLP 418 (PLC)
LAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN and TEXTILE MILLS Versus AURANGZEB KHAN
| Citation | 1986 PLP 418 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | LAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN and TEXTILE MILLS Versus AURANGZEB KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 418 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 418 (PLC)?
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: 1986 PLP 418 (PLC) (LAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN and TEXTILE MILLS Versus AURANGZEB KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner.
- M.K. Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-‑‑ ‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Amendment of written statement‑‑Plea sought to be raised by amending written statement that petition presented by counsel and also that grievance notice served was time‑barred as such petition was not maintainable‑‑Application for amendment made at, arguments stage‑‑Labour Court rejecting application‑‑Both points necessary touching jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside in revision‑ Appellate Tribunal allowing proposed amendment.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Amendment of written statement‑‑Plea sought to be raised by amending written statement that petition presented by counsel and also that grievance notice served was time‑barred as such petition was not maintainable‑‑Application for amendment made at, arguments stage‑‑Labour Court rejecting application‑‑Both points necessary touching jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside in revision‑ Appellate Tribunal allowing proposed amendment. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner. M.K. Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1985. The order dated 10‑9‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi rejecting the application for the, amendment of written statement to raise the pleas that the presentation of the grievance petition by the lawyer was improper and that the grievance notice was time‑barred, is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The grounds given by the learned lower Court for disallowing the amendment, is that the case was at the stage of arguments and if, amendment was allowed, opportunity of evidence would be given, resulting in the delay of the disposal of a very old case. It has been observed that no reason has been given for not asking for amendment earlier. The impugned order shows that in views of the learned lower Court the amendment was not necessary. Since the High Court expressed the view that presentation of, grievance petitions by lawyer was not proper, the amendment was sought late. The question if the grievance notice was time‑barred or not, touched the jurisdiction of the Court as without a valid grievance notice, the Court has no jurisdiction, so this amendment too is necessary.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the proposed amendment is allowed. A. E. Revision accepted.