Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1631 2000 SLD 1631 = 2000 PLC 355
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Revision Application No.KAR 348 of 1998, decision dated:25-03-1999
DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN

NAZIR MASEHVsPRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO.V, KARACHI and another

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 25 A

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25 A(4) Grievance petition Dismissal for non prosecution On filing grievance petition by employee against his dismissal from service, employer/filed written statement and matter was adjourned for evidence of petitioner/employee Case was adjourned for about nine times mostly due to non appearance of employee or his representative Even on final date of hearing fixed for filing affidavit in evidence petitioner/employee and his representative were called absent whereas employer was present Labour Court dismissed grievance petition for non prosecution and application for restoration of grievance petition was also dismissed Validity Employee had contended that order of dismissal of his grievance petition was void as Labour Court instead of dismissing grievance petition should have proceeded with recording statement of employer and decided case on merits Contention of employee was repelled because Labour Court was required to give decision on merits only when affidavit in evidence was filed by employee in support of his grievance petition, whereas employee had failed to file said affidavit in evidence V he remained absent throughout while burden of proof was also on him.(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25 A Grievance petition Dismissal in default Consequences Employer appeared and filed written statement and matter was adjourned for evidence of petitioner/employee Case was adjourned for about nine times mostly due to non appearance of petitioner/employee and his representative Even on final date of hearing fixed for filing affidavit in-evidence, both petitioner and his representative were found absent Grievance petition was rightly dismissed for non prosecution because law could help vigilant and not indolent.Col. (Retd.) Sadiq Hussain Sheikh v. Lt. Col. Farooq Ahmed 1987 SCMR 1887; K.M.C. Sanitary and General Employees' Union v. Sindh Labour Court No.II and others 1987 PLC 754; Syed Munir Hussain Shah v. Mst. Syeda Mahfooz Begum and others 1987 PLC 1241; Shahzad Alam Mirza v. Pakistan Steel Mills 1989 PLC 693 and Kala Khan v. Jubilee Spinning and Weaving Mills 1993 PLC 864 ref.(c)…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register