Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 1750 1977 SLD 1750 1977 PLC 659
Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.
Case No. 171-A of 1976, decided on 14thFebuary 1977.


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

GHULAM MUSTAFA

VS

ASSISTANT VICEPRESIDENT, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., ABBOTTABAD

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--------- -- S. 25-A-Grievance notice, service of-Petition clearly stating that notice was served on Management-Management neither denying such service in written statement nor taking objection to copy of notice being exhibited-Grievance notice, held, was duly served on Management in circumstances of case. (b) Industrial dispute------- ----Labour law-Interpretation-Labour laws are biased in favour of worker-Labour Courts supposed to interpert law in a way favourable to workers. ORDER On 14thOctober, 1975 the petitioner Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, Accountant, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Abbottabad preferred a petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 for his re-instatement. The petition was contested and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to produce, this Court vide its order, dated 30th September, 1976 ordered the reinstate­ment of the petitioner. The respondent, however, went in appeal against the decision of this Court and his Lordship the Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar was pleased to remand the case to this Court for a decision that whether grievance notice had been given by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank. The present order will therefore, be confined to the fact that whether grievance notice under section 25-A of the I. R. O., had been served by the petitioner on the respondent or not. In para 5 of the petition, the petitioner contended that he had served a grievance notice on the respondent but he had received no reply from the respondent. In its written statement the respondent in para 5 has not given any reply to the allegations raised in para. 5 of the petition. The respondent has, however, contended in para. 2 of its written statements that the petitioner had not served a notice under section 25-A of the I. R. O., and as such the Petition was not maintainable. According to the principle laid down in rule 3 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code a defendant is required to reply to each fact which is alleged against him separately and it is either to be admitted or denied. Every allegations of fact in the plaint must be taken to be…
🔒
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