1983 PLP 596 (PLC)
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE
| Citation | 1983 PLP 596 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 596 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 596 (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: 1983 PLP 596 (PLC) (MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Ghafoor for Appellant. , .
- Agha Taj Muhammad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing :1st March, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Suspension ‑ Continuing wrong ‑ Every day of continuity of suspension gives fresh cause of action‑ Grievance petition against alleged wrongful suspension dismissed by Labour Court on ground that grievance notice was time‑barred with reference to date of suspension order‑Grievance notice served during continuity of suspension‑Grievance notice, held, not time‑barred ‑ Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal emanates from the decision dated 1942‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, where by the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as time‑barred.
2. The appellant was suspended on 30‑9‑1980. He in continuance of the suspension order gave grievance notice on 10‑6‑1981 which f‑was in due course followed by the grievance petition. The petition was not time barred as it was given in continuation of the suspension order and suspension is a continuing wrong. On every day on which the suspension continues fresh cause of grievance occurs to the suspended person. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to say anything effective against this view.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and declaring the grievance petition of the appellant as within time, remand the case for decision of the remaining points including merits . Appeal accepted