2012 PLP 447 (PLC)
FACTORY MANAGER, SURAJ COTTON MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
| Citation | 2012 PLP 447 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman |
| Parties | FACTORY MANAGER, SURAJ COTTON MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM |
| Primary Law | Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 447 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 447 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 447 (PLC) (FACTORY MANAGER, SURAJ COTTON MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.A. Naeem for Petitioner.
- Safdar Hussain Sindtiu for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 2011. .
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 33 & 47(5)
Employers/Establishment filed application seeking dismissal of grievance petition filed by the employee, on two grounds, firstly that grievance notice was dispatched by the employee after more than two months from passing dismissal order by the Labour Court; secondly that employee had filed joint grievance petition, which was disallowed by the court with the direction to file separate grievance petitions, which had not been filed in terms and there seemed to be no justification for condonation of delay if any
Labour Court dismissed application of Establishment
Note from the postal authorities clarified that in fact the notice was dispatched on 1-6-2009 and not on 11-6-2009 as claimed by the Establishment
Question that joint grievance petition was disallowed and the subsequent, independent and individual grievance petitions were time barred, was yet to be decided by the Labour Court after recording of the evidence
Both the pleas/objections, raised by the counsel for the petitioner Establishment pertained to factual controversy which could not be decided without recording of evidence on the basis of hypertechnicalities
Order of the Labour Court appeared to be proper and valid
Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition and issued direction to the Labour Court to decide the matter expeditiously after recording of evidence of the parties.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).
During the pendency of grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, the petitioner establishment(respondent in the Labour Court) filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. seeking dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground that dismissal order was passed on 3-3-2009 whereas the grievance notice was dispatched on 11-6-2009 which is clear from the postal receipt on the record. Moreover the respondent had filed joint grievance petition which was disallowed by the Court with the direction to file separate grievance petitions, which have not been filed in time and there seems to be no justification for condonation of the delay if any.
2. The application was strenuously opposed by the petitioner establishment. The learned Labour Court after hearing arguments dismissed the application on 4-8-2011 precisely with the following remarks:
"The respondent desires the court to decide the application under Order VII, Rule 11 while perusing certain documents and evidence on the file. It is against the spirit of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Likewise whether the petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay or not would be decided in due course of time."
3. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
4. The postal receipt available on the record was presented to the postal authorities for clarification as to whether notice was issued on 11-6-2009 or 1-6-2009. There is a note from the postal authorities which clarifies that in fact the notice was dispatched on 1-6-2009.
5. As for the objection that the joint grievance petition was disallowed and the subsequent, independent and individual grievance petitions were time-barred that is yet to be decided by the Labour Courtafter recording of the evidence. Both the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertained to factual controversy which could not be decided without recording of evidence, on the basis of hyper technicalities. The order of the court, therefore, appears to be proper and / valid.
6. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is dismissed and a direction is issued to the learned Labour Court to decide the matter expeditiously after recording of evidence of the parties. HBT/12/PLT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.