1977 PLP 270 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus MESSRS SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LTD; KARACHI
| Citation | 1977 PLP 270 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus MESSRS SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LTD; KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 270 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 270 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 270 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus MESSRS SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LTD; KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raza Abbas Naqvi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 26th October 1976. DECESION This is an appeal under section 37 (3), I. R. O. against the order of the Labour Court No. 11 dismissing the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent. On account of soma ac! 7f misconduct the appellant was charge-sheeted and subsequently dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this, tire appellant sent a grievance notice dated Ist August, 1975 by registered post on 2nd August, 1975 and thereafter made the application under section 25-A, I. R. O. to the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted. It was pleaded that no grievance notice was served upon the respondent. Secondly, the appellant had made similar applications to N. I. R. C. and in other Labour Court and, therefore, all the applications could not be proceeded with simultaneously.
4. The learned Presiding Officer upheld the objections and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. On perusal of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I am of the view that the learned Presiding Officer clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that grievance notice was not served. The postal receipt dated 2nd August, 1975 for the notice dated 1st, August, 1975 was produced. This was a substantial proof of the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the grievance notice was sent. It seems that the learned Presiding Officer was misled on account of the two dates of the notice and the postal receipt. There was nothing unusual casting doubt upon the genuineness of the document or the contention of the appellant. It seems clear that the notice was drafted on 1st August, 1975 and was posted on 2nd August, 1975, t. e., on the following day.
6. So far the second ground is concerned it has now been admitted that no other case is pending to any other Court. Consequently, the question of conflict in decisions does not arise. Moreover mere pendency of e various applications did not justify the dismissal of the application, but at the roost the parties could move for stay of some of the matters of transfer of the matters to the same Court.
7. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The application made under section 25-A by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending and it is transferred to Labour Court No. III for disposal in accordance with law.