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. SUK‑420 of 1977, decided on 29th October 1978.
---‑. S. 25‑A read with Limitation Acts (IX of 1903), S. 5 Grievance notice‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay‑‑Grievance notice served beyond period of limitation and no sufficient ground made out for condonation of delay of one year and 17 days‑Document showing worker's illness found forged and illness also not of such nature as to prevent appellant from serving notice within prescribed time Appellant's application, held, rightly dismissed.
Hasan Hameedi. for Appellant.
Muhammad Anwar for Respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order of labour Court dis missing the application under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
The appellant was removed from service on the ground that he was absent from duty. He approached the Junior Labour Court after the service of grievance notice. The application was resisted. After recording the evidence, the Junior Labour Court ordered the re‑instatement of the appellant. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Labour Court. The order was set aside and case was remanded. Some time thereafter the Junior Labour Courts were abolished and the case was transferred to Labour Court for disposal in accordance with law.
The Labour Court dismissed the application. So this appeal has been filed.
On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is plain enough that the grievance notice was served beyond the period of limitation and no sufficient ground was made out to condone the delay. The appellant was removed from service on 12‑10‑1972. His departmental appeal was dismissed on 9‑1‑1973. The grievance notice was sent on 25‑4‑1974, i.e. one year and 17 days beyond the period of limitation. It was required to be served by 8‑4‑1973 as observed by the Labour Court.
Application under section 5 of Limitation Act was filed stating that due to illness the appellant was prevented from sending the grievance notice. This plea was rejected and I entirely agree with the Labourt Court. In fact the document was forged. The illness was not of such a serious nature as to prevent the appellant from serving the grievance notice within the prescribed time. 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