1988 PLP 698 (PLC(CS))
ALLAH NAWAZ SHEIKH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WORKSHOPS,
| Citation | 1988 PLP 698 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | ALLAH NAWAZ SHEIKH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WORKSHOPS, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 698 (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 1988 PLP 698 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 698 (PLC(CS)) (ALLAH NAWAZ SHEIKH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WORKSHOPS,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition dismissed for improper presentation‑‑Case remanded by Appellate Tribunal for giving opportunity to petitioner‑appellant to prove that petition was presented by him in person or he had appeared before Labour Court within limitation period‑‑Labour Court again dismissing petition for same reason‑‑Appellate Tribunal finding that petitioner‑appellant while making statement before Labour Court was not fitly aware as to why case had been remanded, again remanded case for opportunity of evidence to parties on point of presentation of petition. Appellant in Person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition dismissed for improper presentation‑‑Case remanded by Appellate Tribunal for giving opportunity to petitioner‑appellant to prove that petition was presented by him in person or he had appeared before Labour Court within limitation period‑‑Labour Court again dismissing petition for same reason‑‑Appellate Tribunal finding that petitioner‑appellant while making statement before Labour Court was not fitly aware as to why case had been remanded, again remanded case for opportunity of evidence to parties on point of presentation of petition. Appellant in Person. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 17‑10‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed for improper presentation.
2. The learned lower Court has held that the grievance petition was presented by the learned counsel for the appellant and not by the appellant himself. Previously the same kind of order was passed by learned Punjab Labour Court No.3 and in appeal the case was remanded for giving opportunity to the appellant to prove that the petition was presented by him in person or that within the limitation he had appeared before the learned lower Court. After the remand of the case the statement of the appellant was recorded. On behalf of the respondent Mr. Zaheer Rashid Malik was examined. The appellant did not say anything about the presentation of the grievance petition in his statement. It appears that he was not presented by any lawyer, therefore, he did not understand why the case was remanded and what he had to prove before the learned Lower Court. When RW‑1 stated that the grievance petition was not presented by the appellant himself and that he was not present in person on the date of presentation, he extensively cross‑examined him. This shows tat at the time he gave his own statement he did not know why the' case had been remanded. I feel that in the interest of justice the appellant be afforded an opportunity to prove before the learned Lower Court that either he was present alongwith his counsel at the time of the presentation of the grievance petition or that within limitation he had appeared in person before the learned Lower Court.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the case is remanded with the direction that the appellant be given opportunity to prove that his petition was properly presented. The respondent will also be afforded opportunity to rebut the evidence, if any, produced by the appellant. A.E.511/Lb.P Appeal accepted.