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.
Appeal No. KAR‑247 of 1976, decided on 17th December 1976.
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition proved to have boon made on 6‑9‑1975‑Application under S. 25‑A made on 11‑2‑1976‑Held, rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
Latif Jalili for Appellant.
S. A. Sarwana for Respondent.
The application made under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground of limitation.
2. The service of the appellant was terminated on 3‑9‑75 by the Medical Officer. Consequently the appellant made representations dated 6‑9‑75, 15‑10‑75 and 31‑12‑75 to the Chairman of the Sind Employees' Social Security Institution but nothing was done. He is said to have served grievance petition on 26‑11‑75 and filed the application to Labour Court on 11‑2‑76.
3. The Labour Court, treating the representation dated 6‑9‑75 as grievance petition, held that the application made under section 25‑A of I. R. O. was time‑barred.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid, three representations were by way of appeals and, therefore, could not b treated to be grievance petition, but the one made on 26‑11‑75 was the grievance petition which was material for the purpose of limitation. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that there is no provision for appeal in the Social Security Ordinance. Thus the representation made on 6‑9‑75 was in fact the grievance petition made to higher authority. In this situation, the application made to the Labour Court was time barred and was rightly dismissed.
5. In result the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer