Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1567 1989 SLD 1567 1989 PLC 787
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. SUK-283 of 1988, decided on 21st December, 1988.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Shaikh Fazal Din for Appellant. Shabbir Ahmed Awan for
Respondents.

Syed GHULAM BARI SHAH

VS

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ------S. 25-A--Limitation--Departmental rules providing for appeal within 2 months--Representation made 10 years after impugned order, held, could not be considered as departmental appeal to give fresh cause of action. 1981 PLC 915 and PLD 1964 SC 520 ref. . DECISION This is an appeal against the order of Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 11-8-1988, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents had fixed his seniority in the relevant grade from 15-4-1960, though he was entitled to his seniority from 3-7-1954. According to the appellant he had been making representations from time to time, but, to no avail. The final representation made by him was dated 14-10-1986, which was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 21-1-1987. After serving grievance notice to the respondents, the appellant filed his grievance petition. 3. 1 have heard Mr. Fazal Din for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, Advocate for the respondents. 4. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition mainly on the ground that it was time-barred. The contention of Mr. Fazal Din is that the right of filing grievance petition arose to the appellant after receipt of reply on 21-1-1987. Mr. Shabbir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondents had contended that even if the contention of the appellant, that he had been making representations from time to time is taken to be correct, though it is not admitted by the respondents, still the grievance petition was barred by time. It is submitted that first representation in that case would be considered as a grievance notice under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a case reported in 1981 P L C at page 915. If this be so, then, the grievance petition would not be within time as specified under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. On the other hand, Mr. Sh. Fazal Din contends…
🔒
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