| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3686 2025 SLD 3686 = 2025 PLC 30 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Constitution Petition No.D-1831 of 2019, decided on 23rd May, 2024.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ
Sohail Ahmed Khoso for Petitioner. Shaukat Ali Chaudhry for
Respondents Nos.2 to 4. Dareshani Ali Haider 'Ada', Deputy Attorney General for
Respondent No.1.
Constitution Petition No.D-1831 of 2019, decided on 23rd May, 2024.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ
Sohail Ahmed Khoso for Petitioner. Shaukat Ali Chaudhry for
Respondents Nos.2 to 4. Dareshani Ali Haider 'Ada', Deputy Attorney General for
Respondent No.1.
GUL MUHAMMAD
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance Department, Islamabad and 3 others
Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012
Section: X,33
Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Section: VI,15
Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Section: 2A
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199(1)(a)(ii)
(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)-------S.33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15---Redressal of individual grievances---Dismissal from service---Petitioner while working as Cashier with the respondent-Bank was dismissed from service for a minor procedural error i.e. incorrectly dating a document, whereafter, he challenged his dismissal through various legal avenues and ultimately reached the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in view of "Mubeen-us-Salam" case (PLD 2006 SC 602)---Single Bench of NIRC initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, however, the Full Bench of NIRC overturned that decision on account of time barred grievance and failure to serve grievance notice---Validity---Pursuant to Para. 109(c) of the "Mubeen-us-Salam" case (PLD 2006 SC 602), cases or proceedings not safeguarded or encompassed by the judgment were deemed to have abated---Aggrieved party should seek recourse to the competent forums for the redressal of their grievances within a stipulated period of 90 days, and the statutory limitation imposed by the respective laws shall not be operative against them until the expiration of the aforementioned period--Paragraph 109(e) articulated that the Service Tribunal should adjudicate pending cases under S. 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in light of the preceding observations, however, if any of the cases fall within the purview of clause 'c' (ibid), a grace period of 90 days should be accorded to the aggrieved party to approach the competent forum for the redressal of its grievance, thus, the Federal Service Tribunal abated the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 14.5.2010, advising the petitioner to seek a remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, whereafter, the petitioner filed the Grievance Application before Labour Court, on 15.06.2010, afresh under the provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, thereby falling within the stipulated 90-days' period--Hence, the findings of the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C regarding counting the period were erroneous and constituted a misreading of the…