1996 PLP 333 (PLC)
FACTORY MANAGER, THAL JUTE MILLS, MUZAFFARGARH Versus NASEER AHMAD KHAN and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 333 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FACTORY MANAGER, THAL JUTE MILLS, MUZAFFARGARH Versus NASEER AHMAD KHAN and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 333 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 333 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 333 (PLC) (FACTORY MANAGER, THAL JUTE MILLS, MUZAFFARGARH Versus NASEER AHMAD KHAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riaz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1994.
- Riaz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 38(3-a)
Application filed by employer for deciding question of limitation before recording evidence on factual controversy having not been accepted by Labour Court, employer challenged order of Labour Court in revision before Appellate Tribunal-- Revision petition filed by employer was dismissed by Tribunal holding that objection of limitation raised by employer was not purely legal but was factual as well, thus in order to avoid fragmentary decision of case, adjudication of factual controversies should not be undertaken piecemeal.
Judgment & Decree
Riaz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1994. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition from an interlocutory order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan on 12th of February, 1994, whereby his application for deciding the question of limitation before recording evidence on the factual controversies, was not accepted.
2. Naseer Ahmad Khan, respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner as Audit Assistant. He was dismissed from service on 3rd of February, 1992. He filed a grievance petition to assail his dismissal. The petitioner contested the grievance petition, inter alia, raising an objection that it was barred by time.
3. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application praying that since the grievance petition was hopelessly barred by time, the question of limitation be decided before recording evidence on the merits of the case. The learned Labour Court vide its impugned order did not accept the application observing that the issue of limitation needed evidence for its conclusive decision and, therefore, it would be decided alongwith the main grievance petition. The petitioner has assailed this order in this revision petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason which has prevailed with the learned Labour Court in declining the request of the petitioner is quite cogent and valid. The objection of limitation raised by the petitioner in this case is not purely legal; it is factual as well. In order to avoid fragmentary decision of the case, it is desirable that adjudication of the factual controversies should not be undertaken piecemeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground for interference and dismiss this revision petition in limine. H.B.T./787/Lb.P Revision petition dismissed.