FACTORY MANAGER, SURAJ COTTON MILLS LTD. versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Section 33 and (47 ()) of the Complaint filed by the Applicants / Establishment for the removal of the Complaint filed by the Employees, on two grounds, first that the Complaint Notice was dismissed by the Employer through the Labor Court. Was sent two months after the order was passed. Secondly, this employee filed a joint complaint, which was rejected by the court with instructions to file separate complaints, whose terms were not filed, and it looks as if the Labor Court had established If you dismiss the request for, no delay will be allowed. The justification note by the postal authorities made it clear that in fact the notice was sent not on 1 6 2009 but on 11 6 2009 as claimed by the Establishment Question that the request for joint complaint was not allowed and Subsequently, free and individual complaint requests were timely barred. Although the decision cannot be made by the Labor Court after the recording of the evidence, both the petitions / objections submitted by the Applicant Establishment's lawyer relate to the factual dispute which was decided on the basis of the Labor Court's hypertension order. This cannot be done without recording the evidence. Appropriate and correct appellate tribunal dismisses the petition and directs the labor court to record the evidence of the parties demanding a speedy decision on the matter.
Related judgments — Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab, 2012
