Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD KAZIM AND 2 OTHERS versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN


Art, 11 suspension period Due to the arrest due to the authorized charge only extension with 4 months due to proper consideration by the competent authority is not necessary to continue till the verdict by the officer of the court is necessary but remains on bail The authorities, who were not on the required suspension without regard to the airworthiness, have been under suspension for more than 3 years on arrest under section 304, the Penal Code, on the grounds that the suspension should be continued during the pending order. Under the circumstances, the Labor Court has been appointed under section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). An Illustration (XLV of 1860), Section 304

1977 P L C 303

[IVth Labour Court Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Mian Qureshi, Presiding Officer

ATTA MUHAMMAD

versus

DIVISIONAL. SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS, MULTAN

Appeal No. 353 of 1974, decided on 7th July, 1975.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Limitation ‑ Time spent on departmental appeal Condonable‑ Departmental appeal dismissed‑Time spent on mercy petition thereafter‑Not condonable.

Appellant in person.

Muhammad Latif for Respondent.

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by Atta Muhammad, Ex‑Watchman, P. W. R. Multan, against order dated, 9th December 1974, of the learned Junior Labour Court dismissing his petition for re‑instatement in service. The appellant was dismissed from service on 2nd April 1973 He preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 10th July 1973. The petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed by the appellant on 28th May 1974. He filed an application on 26th November 1974 in the learned lower Court for the condonation of delay on the ground that as an illiterate person he was not aware of the obligations of law to move the Court in time which plea was rejected and his petition dismissed as time barred.

In the present appeal the facts mentioned above have not been contro verted. However, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that after the departmental appeal was decided against him, he filed a revision petition to the General Manager, P. W. R. which was provided under the departmental rule and as it was rejected vide letter of the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R. Multan, dated, 9th April 1974, the petition filed on 28th May 1974 was within time.

According to the relevant record the last petition of the appellant made to the department was not a revision petition but it was a mercy petition which was made over six months after the departmental appeal was dismissed. In such situation the condonation of delay could not be allowed to the appellant which if allowed would amount to an interference in departmental jurisdiction of the Railway authorities. The appeal therefore having no force is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Kahror Pacca lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.