Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1605 1989 SLD 1605 1989 PLC 879
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-316 of 1982, decided on 30th April, 1989.

Munawar Ahmed Javed for Appellant. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD SAEED

VS

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ---S. 37--Appeal--Limitation--Impugned decision/order of Labour Court passed on date not fixed, and for which there was no notice to parties and without hearing arguments--Such order would have no value in the eyes of law-­Limitation for appeal, against such order would start from date of knowledge of appellant and not from date of order. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI11 of 1969)-- ---Ss. 25-A, 36 & 38(3)--Case fixed for arguments but order passed a day earlier without notice to parties and without hearing arguments--Order, held, was not maintainable. Date of hearing: 29th April, 1989. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 20-10-1981 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement in service 2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had forged Cheque No. 498434 drawn on Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Circular Road, Faisalabad and received Rs.35,200 in collaboration with Muhammad Yaqoob, Machine Operator. The cheque mentioned above was issued from a cheque book containing 21 unused cheque leaves from Nos. 4984.'30 to 498450 CD issued to Messrs Sunshine Publicity. It was also alleged that the appellant intentionally entered wrong particulars of the cheque in a day book giving account No. as 6014 instead of 6065 and gave the number of the cheque as 222810 instead of 498434 and mentioned the closed account No. 7 instead of 10. Previously the case was decided accepting the appeal of the appellant but the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the case for the reason that the question of limitation was not decided by this Tribunal. After the remand the appellant gave an application for the amendment of memo. of appeal and the application for condonation of delay. The amendment has been allowed and the amended appeal and the petition for condonation of delay have been riled. 1n support of the amended petition for condonation the appellant has appeared as his own witness and on behalf of the bank Kh. Bashir Ahmed, officer has been examined as RW. 1. The statement of the…
🔒
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