Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑45 of 1977, heard on 9th February 1977.

‑‑‑ S. 25‑.A‑Grievance under S. 25‑A should be in respect of any right guaranteed or secured by or under any law or award or settle ment‑Decision of civil Court holding applicant workman's termina tion of services to be void‑Does not fall under any of categories laid down in S. 25‑A‑Application under S. 25‑A not maintainable in circumstances of case.

Date of hearing : 9th February 1977.

This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance by the appellant on the ground of limitation.

2. The appellant was in the service of the Printing Corporation of Pakistan. He was retired from service for inefficiency on 29th June, 1959 by an order of the President of Pakistan. So he was relieved of his duties on 1st July, 1959. He made several documentary representations without any relief. He, therefore, filed a Suit No. 2139 of 1968 in the District Court, Karachi. The suit was disposed of on 1st October, 1976 whereby the retirement was held to be void ab initio and not binding upon the appellant. In consequence of this decision the appellant applied to the Printing Corpora tion of Pakistan on 5th October, 1976 for resumption of his duties but on the same day this was refused. He, therefore, served a grievance notice on 26th November, 1976 and filed the application to the Labour Court under sec tion 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.

3. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application as time‑barred on the ground that the cause of action accrued to the appellant on 29th June, 1959 when the order of retirement was passed and finally on 12th June, 1968 when the representation was turned down by the Government. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I am of the view that apart from the fact that the application made under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance was hopelessly time‑barred and it does not appear that any application for condonation of delay was made, yet there is another fact which is fatal to the present proceedings. The appellant had already secured an order from the civil Court whereby the termination of service was held to be void, and thus there remained only the question of implementation of that decision. So, in fact, the application which has made, under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance was for the purpose of implementation of that order and apparently such an application is no tin maintainable. Section 25‑A requires that the grievance should be in respects of any right guaranteed or secured by or under any law or award or settlement. In the present case the decision of the Civil Court does not fall under any of these categories, and, therefore, the application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance filed on 5‑1‑77 was not maintainable.

5. In result the appeal is summarily dismissed.

Appeal 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.