Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1622 2000 SLD 1622 2000 PLC 328
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Application No.FD 135 of 1999, decision dated: 22-10-1999
MIAN GHULAM AHMED, CHAIRMAN
Ahmad Awais Khuram AND Nemo

MEHMOOD AKHTAR SHEIKH

VS

CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS, FAISALABAD

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25 A Grievance petition Application for Transfer of petition Employee filed application to transfer his grievance petition to another Court and in another District at the time when evidence of parties was recorded and matter was posted for final arguments Employee during course of hearing of the case had filed many applications for production of additional evidence, but could not produce same despite his applications in that respect were accepted Employee, thus, by his conduct had been abusing process of the Court Employee, in circumstances, would endeavour to secure adjournments to prolong the matter even if his grievance petition was entrusted to a different Court Application for transfer of grievance petition to another Court was rejected, in circumstances. JUDGMENT The matter is pending in the learned Labour Court at Faisalabad; and the greivance petitioner seeks its transfer to some other Court. When confronted with the situation that there was no other Labour Court functioning at Faisalabad, the petitioner said that his grievance petition could well be entrusted to the Labour Court at Jhang. It is to be noted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Sargodha tours Jhang for attending to the Labour cases for a few days every months. I have gone through the transfer application, the reply submitted by the respondents, as also the comments offered by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faisalabad. According to the learned counsel for the Establishment, it is a mala fide move and there is no genuine ground for transfer of the case. req learned Labour Court had, on entertaining the grievance petition of the employee, granted in his favour mandatory injunction, suspending operation of the dismissal order, and he continues to be in service and in enjoyment of all the benefits. Obviously the object is to keep the matter lingering on, for as long as it is possible for the petitioner. 2. The comments reveal that the petitioner is a super clever and cunning person and has obnoxiously been abusing the process of the Court, rather prostituting it. Evidence of the parties was recorded and the case 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