Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 1667 1977 SLD 1667 1977 PLC 391
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 276 of 1973, decided on 24th May 1975.
MUHAMMAD MIAN QURESHI, PRESIDING OFFICER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

UNITED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAZALABAD, MULTAN

VS

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 7 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- ----Ss. 25-A (1), (2) & (3) & 36-D-Service of grievance notice-Plea of non-service of grievance notice raised for first time in appeal on contention that Junior Labour Court could not assume jurisdiction in absence of same-Respondent claiming having served such notice­--Point neither raised before nor examined by Junior Labour Court­ Case, in circumstances, remanded, due to inherent legal implication, for evidence on such point. Nasim Silk Industry v. 5th Sind Labour Court P L J 1974 Kar. 80 gel. Nasir Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Amin for Respondents. DECISION An appeal has been filed by the Managing Director, United Textile Mills Limited, Multan, against the order of the Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 12th February 1973 whereby eight workers, namely. Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Sharif, Munir Ahmad, Amin-ud-­Din, Muhammad Yamin, Inam-ul-Haq, and Inayat Masih were held entitled to gratuities, ancillary benefits if any, admissible under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, read with the Standing Orders Ordinance for the whole length of their service in consequence -of their resignations. In the present appeal a fundamental question has been raised on behalf of the appellant Management that the respondent workers did not serve the Management any grievance notice required under section 25-A (1), (2), (3), which was a condition precedent to initiate the proceedings in the Junior Labour Court. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that no such question was raised in the learned Lower Court nor it finds mention in the memorandum of appeal and therefore the contention cannot be raised at this late stage. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that in the absence of this mandatory notice the learned Lower Court could not assume jurisdiction adjudicate upon the dispute and on that score the objection being purely of legal nature can be raised at any stage. He has relied upon Nasim Silk Industry v. 5th Sind Labour…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492