1992 PLP 704 (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD
| Citation | 1992 PLP 704 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 704 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 704 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 704 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
- Rafiq Ahmad, A.-G.P. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991.
- 2. I have heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, A.-G.P. for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
Appellant was removed from service on 11-1-1989, whereas he served grievance notice upon respondent employer on 17-5-1989
Appellant stating that his services were terminated on 20-2-1989 therefore his grievance notice was within time
Document filed by appellant alongwith grievance petition showing that he was removed on 10-1-1989
Such document was produced by appellant himself and it had come from his possession and therefore it would be presumed to be correct
Held, grievance notice dated 17-5-1989 was obviously time-barred and same having been filed beyond period of three months was rightly dismissed as time-barred.
Judgment & Decree
S.25-A
Appellant was removed from service on 11-1-1989, whereas he served grievance notice upon respondent employer on 17-5-1989
Appellant stating that his services were terminated on 20-2-1989 therefore his grievance notice was within time
Document filed by appellant alongwith grievance petition showing that he was removed on 10-1-1989
Such document was produced by appellant himself and it had come from his possession and therefore it would be presumed to be correct
Held, grievance notice dated 17-5-1989 was obviously time-barred and same having been filed beyond period of three months was rightly dismissed as time-barred. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Rafiq Ahmad, A.-G.P. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 9-5-1990; whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred.
2. I have heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, A.-G.P. for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The appellant was removed from service on 11-1-1989, vide order, dated 12-1-1989. Whereas, he served grievance notice upon the respondents on 17-5-1989. The case of the appellant is that his services were terminated on 20-2-1989, therefore, the notice was within time. Annexure `A/1' which was filed by the appellant alongwith his grievance petition shows that he was removed from service on 10-1-1989. This is the document produced by the appellant himself and it has come from the possession of the appellant. As such, it would be correct. Grievance notice, dated 17-5-1989 is obviously time- barred as it is beyond the period of 3 months as prescribed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly held that the grievance petition is time-barred. I see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./1844/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.