1992 PLP 1234 (PLC(CS))
MUMTAZ ALI Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POULTRY DEVELOPMENT IN SINDH
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1234 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUMTAZ ALI Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POULTRY DEVELOPMENT IN SINDH |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1234 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1234 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1234 (PLC(CS)) (MUMTAZ ALI Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POULTRY DEVELOPMENT IN SINDH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nizamuddin Baloch for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)...
S. 25-A
Appointment on temporary basis
Services terminated for misconduct
Grievance notice served by workman was time barred
In spite of the fact that point of limitation had to be reckoned with, no postal receipt or any document was riled on behalf of workman to substantiate that grievance notice was in time as required by law
Grievance application was rightly dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. SUK-96 of 1992, decided on 22nd March, 1992. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)...
S. 25-A
Appointment on temporary basis
Services terminated for misconduct
Grievance notice served by workman was time barred
In spite of the fact that point of limitation had to be reckoned with, no postal receipt or any document was riled on behalf of workman to substantiate that grievance notice was in time as required by law
Grievance application was rightly dismissed in circumstances. Nizamuddin Baloch for Appellant. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1992. The appellant was appointed by the respondents as Poultry Attendant, on temporary basis and his services came to be terminated as he was found to have stolen six chickens from the Poultry Unit, Dadu. He had made representation to the Department. However, it has been found by the Labour Court that the grievance notice was time-barred. It is further found that in spite of the fact that the point of limitation had to be reckoned with, no postal receipt or any document was filed on behalf of the appellant to substantiate that the grievance notice was in time as required under the law. In the circumstances, there is no force in the contention of the appellant that the appeal was within time. I will therefore dismiss the appeal summarily. A.A./2034/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.