Law:

Section:

Keywords: Commercial Employment, Relief, Division, Jurisdiction, Conferment, Exercise Of Jurisdiction, Communication, Set Aside, Notice, Labour Court, Endorsement, Grievance, Leave, Costs, Period, Nullity, Grounds, Petitioner, Place, Language, Change, Orders, High Court, Illegal, Presumption, Absence From Duty, Establishment, Without Jurisdiction, Petition, Commencement, Trade Union, Parties, Charge-Sheet, Receipt, Misreading Of Evidence, Procedure, Provisions, Care, Impugned Order, Conditions, Retrospective Effect, Grievance Petition, Order, Discharge, Remedy, Objections, Pre-Condition, Evidence Result: Petition allowed JUDGMENT The petitioner is a firm and owns a silk mill. The second respondent eras employed by the petitioner as a weaver in its mill, but he vas absent from 20th September, 1972 for about 2 weeks, therefore the petitioner had charge-sheeted him. Its notice was returned undelivered to it with the postal endorsement "refused". However, as the 2nd respondent appeared for duty on 10-10-1972, the petitioner allowed him to resume his employment. But he was again absent from the next day, and again did not care to make any application for leave to the petitioner. Therefore, after waiting for about two weeks, the petitioner again charge-sheeted him on 26-10-1972, and this notice also was returned undelivered with the same postal endorse ment "refused." The 2nd respondent however claimed that he had addressed a leave application not to his employer, but to the Provincial Labour Minister, and, as he was not allowed to resume duty by the petitioner, he filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 (hereafter called the said Ordinance), in a Junior Labour Court, Karachi. His prayer in this application was that he should be re-instated or that he should be paid all his legal dues. 2. The petitioner contested this application on various grounds. It advanced two legal objections. It contended firstly that the application against it was barred under section 25-A of the said Ordinance, as the 2nd respondent had not followed the procedure prescribed in that section. Secondly, it was submitted that the application was barred…

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