Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 895 1992 SLD 895 1992 PLC 620
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Revision Application No. 29 of 1991, decided on 9th March, 1991.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Messrs NOOR TRADING CORPORATION

VS

NANJI Messrs NOOR TRADING CORPORATION vs NANJI

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 25-A, 38(3-a) & 65-B---Revision, suo motu---Dismissal order--­Limitation---Question whether grievance petition was time-barred was held by Labour Court to be a mixed question of law and fact---Employer in the meantime passed dismissal order in writing against which employee allegedly had filed a separate case---Question that grievance petition had become infructuous after separate case was filed by employee also involved question of fact and would also be considered after evidence was recorded as to whether relief sought in both cases was the same and also if the relief was same, and whether first application would be infructuous or second would be hit by principle of res judicata---Held, there existed no illegality in the order of Labour Court to call for any- interference by Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Nemo for Applicants Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1991. DECISION By this application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O., 1969, the applicant has invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal and has prayed that the legality, correctness and propriety of the order, dated 5-1-1991, passed by the learned Labour Court in application No. 17 of 1990, may be considered by this Tribunal. It appears that the respondent, who was workman employed by the applicants, was allegedly gate-stopped from 5-11-1989. He served grievance notice upon the applicants and then filed grievance petition. In the meantime applicants passed dismissal order in writing, dated 14-5-1990 against' which also the respondent is alleged to have filed a separate case. The applicants thereafter filed a preliminary objection to the effect that the grievance petition was time-barred and that it has become infructuous after written order of dismissal was passed and after second case was filed by the respondent. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that questions raised by 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