2000 PLP 451 (PLC)
ALI SHER and 12 others Versus Messrs ENGRO CHEMICAL PAKISTAN LIMITED and 2 others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 451 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman |
| Parties | ALI SHER and 12 others Versus Messrs ENGRO CHEMICAL PAKISTAN LIMITED and 2 others |
| Primary Law | 2. Heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellants. The letter of termination dated 21-6-1998, filed by the appellant, appears at page 17 of the appeal file, which reads as under:, JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 451 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: 2. Heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellants. The letter of termination dated 21-6-1998, filed by the appellant, appears at page 17 of the appeal file, which reads as under:, JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 451 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 451 (PLC) (ALI SHER and 12 others Versus Messrs ENGRO CHEMICAL PAKISTAN LIMITED and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafiq Qureshi for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12
Services of employees were terminated by issuing them termination letter under S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Employee's gave grievance notice to employers against termination of their services after. a period of three months from termination of services which was to be given within three months as -provided under S.25-A(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Grievance petition filed by employees against termination of their services, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court being barred by time. This is an appeal, filed under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order passed on 23-6-1999 by the learned Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, on an application under section 25-A(10) of the I.R.O., 1959, tiled by thirteen workers, who are appellants herein, whose application was dismissed on the sole ground that the grievance notice, given to the respondent, was time-barred.
3. A perusal of the above letter shows that Messrs Al-Sajid & Company (respondent No.2) were the contractors of Engro Chemical Pakistan (respondent No. l) and these appellants were on the pay-roll of the said contractors. The termination letter, as admitted by the learned counsel, appears to have been issued under Standing Order 12(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 with payment of one months' pay in lieu of notice.
4. Being aggrieved of the said order of termination, the appellants gave grievance notice, dated 3rd October, 1998, which appears to have been given, admittedly, after a period of three months, as provided under section 25-A(1) of the I.R.O., 1969, which is mandatory for seeking relief of reinstatement
5. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi submits that the employer, the respondent No. 2, simultaneously with the termination of the employment of appellants, also filed an application under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, which is soil pending before the learned Labour Court at Sukkur and the time for termination of the employment of the workers will start only after the said application is disposed of. It will be unfair on my part to make any observation on a. mailer, pending before the learned Labour Court.
6. At the moment, I am concerned whether the grievance notice, given to the employer, respondent No.2, was within the statutory period, provided in law or not? The learned Labour Court has given a clear finding in the order, impugned before me, that the grievance notice, dated 3rd October, 1998, was time-barred, which position, on the factual plain, is not disputed by the learned counsel.
7. I have no reason to take a different view, expressed by the learned Labour Court, in its order, impugned before me, that the grievance notice is time-barred.
8. During the course of dictating the judgment, Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, raised a plea that Standing Order 12(3) does not give any time limit for filing application before the learned Labour Court. I find no substance in the submission. It is the provision of section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which governs the field in the matter.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./335/K/(L.TRIB.) Appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal, filed under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order passed on 23‑6‑1999 by the learned Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, on an application under section 25‑A(10) of the I.R.O., 1959, tiled by thirteen workers, who are appellants herein, whose application was dismissed on the sole ground that the grievance notice, given to the respondent, was time‑barred.
2. Heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellants. The letter of termination dated 21‑6‑1998, filed by the appellant, appears at page 17 of the appeal file, which reads as under:‑‑‑
3. A perusal of the above letter shows that Messrs Al‑Sajid & Company (respondent No.2) were the contractors of Engro Chemical Pakistan (respondent No. l) and these appellants were on the pay‑roll of the said contractors. The termination letter, as admitted by the learned counsel, appears to have been issued under Standing Order 12(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 with payment of one months' pay in lieu of notice.
4. Being aggrieved of the said order of termination, the appellants gave grievance notice, dated 3rd October, 1998, which appears to have been given, admittedly, after a period of three months, as provided under section 25‑A(1) of the I.R.O., 1969, which is mandatory for seeking relief of reinstatement
5. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi submits that the employer, the respondent No. 2, simultaneously with the termination of the employment of appellants, also filed an application under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, which is soil pending before the learned Labour Court at Sukkur and the time for termination of the employment of the workers will start only after the said application is disposed of. It will be unfair on my part to make any observation on a. mailer, pending before the learned Labour Court.
6. At the moment, I am concerned whether the grievance notice, given to the employer, respondent No.2, was within the statutory period, provided in law or not? The learned Labour Court has given a clear finding in the order, impugned before me, that the grievance notice, dated 3rd October, 1998, was time‑barred, which position, on the factual plain, is not disputed by the learned counsel.
7. I have no reason to take a different view, expressed by the learned Labour Court, in its order, impugned before me, that the grievance notice is time‑barred.
8. During the course of dictating the judgment, Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, raised a plea that Standing Order 12(3) does not give any time limit for filing application before the learned Labour Court. I find no substance in the submission. It is the provision of section 25‑A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which governs the field in the matter.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./335/K/(L.TRIB.) Appeal dismissed.