| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 1481 1990 SLD 1481 1990 PLC 616 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. MN-18of 1990, decided on 7th March, 1990
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Muhammad Riaz Lone for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Shafi for
Respondent.
Appeal No. MN-18of 1990, decided on 7th March, 1990
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Muhammad Riaz Lone for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Shafi for
Respondent.
Sh. ABDUL RAZZAQ
VS
Sh. ABDUL RAZZAQ vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, KABIRWALA
Law:
Section:
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ----S. 25-A---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14---Time spent in Civil Court, exclusion of---Appellant, despite fully knowing that Labour Laws being applicable to his case, his remedy was in Labour Court and general jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred, instead of sending grievance notice to, his employer against his termination, directly brought a civil suit--Contention of appellant that time spent in Civil Court should have been excluded, was repelled in view of the fact that in spite of knowing that Labour Laws were applicable, appellant could not be said to have brought civil suit and prosecuted it with due diligence and in good faith--Mandatory conditions `due diligence' and `good faith' having not been fulfilled by appellant, section 14 of Limitation Act would not be helpful to him. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ----Ss. 25-A & 65-B---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 14---Delay in service of grievance notice ---Condonation of---Section 65-B (I.R.O.) providing that delay in doing any other thing can also be condoned, delay in service of grievance notice, held, was covered by that section and Court had jurisdiction to condone delay in service of grievance notice---Provisions of section 14 of Limitation Act not being attracted to the case of appellant, Court below rightly refused to exclude period spent by appellant in prosecuting civil suit and grievance notice also had been rightly adjudged as hopelessly time-barred. [p. 6171 B JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 14-12-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement has been dismissed. 2. The appellant was a library clerk and his services were terminated on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal since the recommendations from the Selection Committee had not been obtained. The grievance petition has been dismissed on merits and on the ground that the grievance notice was time-barred. On merits the appellant had a good case because it was not the fault of the appellant if his…
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