| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3042 = 1981 SLD 3042 = 1981 PLC 394 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. D-1052 of 1980, decided on 17th March 1981.
Presented By: Abdul Hafeez Memon, J
A. Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A.-G. for Petitioner. Ali Amjad for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. D-1052 of 1980, decided on 17th March 1981.
Presented By: Abdul Hafeez Memon, J
A. Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A.-G. for Petitioner. Ali Amjad for
Respondents.
SUPERINTENDENT, SIND GOVERNMENT PRESS AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
FARHAT ALI ZAIDI AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 25-A
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25-A-Limitation-Services of worker terminated but orders for his re-instatement passed by Chief Minister-Employer on allegation of order of re-instatement and signatures of Chief Minister both being forged referring matter to Crimes Branch for enquiry- Worker exonerated of allegation of forgery on Chief Minister's confirmation of his signature on 1st August, 1977 and inquiry dropped-Worker still being not re-instated serving notice on employer and filing grievance application claiming re-instatement in service with back benefits - Grievance notice served on petitioner Department on 12th September, 1977-Grievance petition filed before Labour Court on 17th November, 1977 Labour Court dismissing application as time barred-Held, fresh cause of action accrued to worker from Ist August, 1977 when Chief Minister endorsed correctness of order of re-instatement And grievance notice and petition both filed within stipulated period and not barred by limitation. Date of hearing : 17th March, 1981. JUDGMENT This petition is directed against the decision, dated 5th June, 1980 given by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby he set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 from service and remanded the case to the Second Sind Labour Court, only for determination of the claim of the said respondent for back benefits during the period he was kept out of service by the petitioners. The relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 was employed as Machineman in the Sind Government Press. He was charge-sheeted on 9th September, 1975 in respect of certain acts of misconduct and after being found guilty in the enquiry was dismissed from service with effect from 20th December, 1975. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 appealed to his…