Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1625 2001 SLD 1625 2001 PLC 353
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR 246 of 1998, decision dated: 21st April, 2000, hearing DATE : 18-04-2000
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, 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

NISAR AHMAD

VS

KARACHI SHERATON HOTEL NISAR AHMAD Vs KARACHI SHERATON HOTEL

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ---Ss.25 A & 37(3) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.15(3) Grievance petition Dismissal of employee from service on allegations of misbehaviour/misconduct after show cause notice and inquiry Witnesses produced by employer in proof of allegations against employee had proved by their evidence that employee not only had disobeyed order of his superior, but also misbehaved with him Employee had failed to establish any ill will or prejudice against the witnesses Employee, in circumstances, had rightly been dismissed from service on allegations of misbehaviour/misconduct Appeal against order of dismissal otherwise being barred by time, was dismissed. 1997 SCMR 860; 1999 SCMR.108 and Jumma v. Maulvi Mubarak 1971 SCMR 779 ref. ORDER The Vth Sindh Labour Court Karachi who by impugned order, dated 16 5 1998 dismissed his petition. Hence this appeal tiled by the appellant against the said dismissal. 2. I have carefully perused the material brought on record and have also considered the arguments made at the bar. 3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel of the respondents was that appeal was time-barred. Admittedly the period of limitation for tiling appeal came to expire during the summer vacation. As such the argument of the appellant was that in such case the appeal could be filed on opening day of the Court after vacation and as it was filed accordingly it could not be held as time barred. In support of this argument the learned counsel relied upon Supreme Court authority reported as 1997 SCMR 860 wherein it was held "The proposition is well settled by now that section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not extend the period of limitation prescribed under the law: it simply permits suit, appeal or application to be tiled on re opening of the Court if the period of limitation expires on day when the Court is close." 4. Disagreeing with the above position, the learned counsel for the respondents however, contended that since the registry of the Court remained open during the vacation the tiling of appeal could not be avoided on excuse of closure…
🔒
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