Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeals Nos. 927, 931. and 953 of 1973, decided on 19th October 1973.
--- S. 25-A-Termination of service-Application to Junior Labour Court-Junior Labour Court rejecting application as non-maintainable for not having exhausted departmental remedy-Order of Junior Labour Court, held, not sustainable and worker, held, entitled to seek remedy under S. 25-A even without availing right of departmental appeal.
The above-named appellants have filed these appeals against the orders dated 20-9-73, 18-9-73 and 1-10-73, respectively passed by the Junior Labour Court, Multan whereby their applications for re-instatement and consequential benefits were fired. As a common issue is involved in the appeals, therefore, all these appeals shall be decided trough this order.
Arguments heard. The Junior Labour Court filed the petitions and declined to proceed ahead with them on the ground that the petitioners had not exhausted the departmental remedy available to them. They were advised to file departmental appeals against their termination. The orders ere unsustainable. Section 25-A of the I.R.O. specifically gives a right to a workman to make an application in the Junior Labour Court against his termination within a period of two months from the date of his termination and also confers jurisdiction on the Junior Labour Court to entertain and decide such application. There was absolutely no justification for throwing away the petitions on the ground that the petitioners had not availed the right of appeal.
For the foregoing reason I accept the appeals, set aside the orders of the Junior Labour Court and remand the cases to the said Court with the direction that it may proceed ahead with the cases in accordance with law.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer