Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 1019 1995 SLD 1019 1995 PLC 50
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 2035 of 1994, decided on 7th September, 1994.
MAMOON QAZI AND SHED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ

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

DAD MUHAMMAD BALOCH

VS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 25-A---Grievance petition---Maintainability---Employee who was appointed temporarily, was arrested on criminal charge, but was released on bail---Employee had claimed that after his release on bail he verbally reported to employer for duty, but he was asked to wait till case against him was finally decided---Employee was acquitted after about two and half years and filed grievance petition, which was dismissed being barred by time ---Employee who claimed that cause of action had accrued to him when he verbally reported to employer after his release on bail, had failed to prove that -he reported to employer after his release on bail and was asked to wait till Final decision of case against him---Grievance petition filed after two and half years from his release on bail was hopelessly time-barred, and thus was not maintainable. Chaudhary Rashid Ahmed for Petitioner. ORDER MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner was appointed as workman by Respondent No. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed temporarily and t letter last received by the petitioner his services were to end on 18-7-1988. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on a criminal charge and was released on bail on 7-9-1988. Thereafter, he verbally reported to the said respondent's Manager at Tando Adam but was asked to wait till the decision of the said case. The petitioner, was thereafter acquitted on 4-1-1991. It is alleged by the petitioner that thereafter he approached the said respondent again on 10-1-1991 for being taken on duty but was refused as he was told that he was no longer in the service of the respondent. The petitioner then sent a grievance notice to the respondent. on 31-1-1991 and thereafter filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was allowed. However, on an appeal filed before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal by respondent No. 2, the order of the learned Labour Court was reversed and hence the petition. As is evident from the decision of the learned Appellate Tribunal, the order of the learned Labour Court has been reversed on the ground that grievance notice sent by the petitioner was…
🔒
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