Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1689 2000 SLD 1689 2000 PLC 639
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal NOXAR 143 of 1999, decision dated: 18-10-1999
DR. TANZILUR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN

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

Syed MUSTAFA ALI SARD

VS

PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S.25 A Grievance petition Maintainability Petitioner after termination of his service though served grievance notice to employer establishment within prescribed period but instead of filing grievance petition before Labour Court filed appeal before Service Tribunal after five months of termination of his service which was dismissed by Service Tribunal holding that Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction Section 2 A was inserted in Service Tribunals Act, 1973, during that period where under employee could file appeal before the Service Tribunal, but he instead of filing fresh appeal before Service Tribunal had filed grievance petition under S.25 A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 with delay of about one year and four months Employer establishment which was, established under Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961, a Federal law, was covered under. S.2 A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 Employee, in circumstances, would be treated to be a civil servant for a limited purpose and Service Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction to redress grievance of employee Labour Court had rightly dismissed grievance petition for want of jurisdiction in circumstances. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the decision, dated 31st July, 1999, passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No.5, at Karachi, dismissing the Grievance Application No. 191 of 1998, instituted under section 25 A of the I,R.O., 1969. 2. The appellant is present in person and submits that he was misguided by the respondent that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has no application to the facts of the case and that is why he approached the Federal Service Tribunal and because of that a delay of about one year and four months have taken place. 3. The learned Presiding Officer has narrated the entire history of the case in detail and I need riot to repeat the same as being unnecessary. He, however, found the application under section 25 A, I.R.O., 1969, as not maintainable in view of the promulgation of section 2 A, inserted in the Service Tribunals Act on 10th June, 1997 and further that the application suffers from an inordinate delay of one year and four months.…
🔒
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