| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 1641 1989 SLD 1641 1989 PLC 912 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. FD-498 of 1985, decided on 30th November, 1985.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Saleem Baig for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.
Appeal No. FD-498 of 1985, decided on 30th November, 1985.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Saleem Baig for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.
KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
VS
ABDUL WAHID
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss. 25-A, 37 & 38(3-a)--Appeal--Revision--Impugned order of Labour Court allowing withdrawal of petition with permission to bring fresh one being not a decision under S. 25-A was not appealable--Order passed without any application on behalf of petitioner -simply for reason that petition had been presented by counsel and not by petitioner himself being in jail--Labour Court, held, was not competent and had no jurisdiction to give permission to bring fresh petition in absence of any application to that effect--Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, treated appeal as revision and set aside impugned order remanding case for disposal under law. JUDGMENT The order dated 10-7-1085 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh one, is reported to be illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. On the ground that the grievance petition had been presented by the lawyer and not by the respondent himself, the learned lower Court allowed its withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition. In response to the notice of appeal, application of the respondent was received that he being in jail serving R.I. for two years, was not in a position to defend himself against the appeal. It was prayed that the appeal be adjourned till he was released from the jail. He was informed by a fresh notice that the appeal could not be adjourned for such a long time. He was advised to engage a counsel but none appeared on the date fixed, nor any reply to the notice was received. So the appeal was heard ex parte. 3. The impugned order not being a decision delivered under section 25-A, no appeal lies. However, the appeal has been treated as revision. A perusal of the file shows that there is no application, nor statement…
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