Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 134 of 1978, decided on 16th January, 1980.

(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 1978 of the Sind High Court in Petition 774 of 1978).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑ Art. 185 (3) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII

of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Point urged by the petitioner, before Labour Appellate Tribunal and High Court, that of fact that a copy of inquiry Report etc. was not supplied to him at time of Inquiry‑No question of law raised before Supreme Court.‑[Question of fact].

Hamid M. Siddiqui,

Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing :16th January, 1980.

‑Faqir Muhammad, petitioner, was employed as Helping Weaver in the Rashid Textile Mills Limited, Karachi. There was an allegation, against him of wilfully damaging certain property of the said Mills. He was, therefore, served with a charge sheet dated 24th October, 1975 and, after an inquiry, he was dismissed from the service. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court through an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance but the same was dismissed on 16th October 1976. He then filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but that was also dismissed in limine, vide Order dated 14th March 1977. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner challenged the Order of the Appellate Tribunal through Writ Petition (No. 774/1978) in the Sind High Court, but that too was dismissed vide impugned Order dated 23rd May, 1978 Hence the present petition.

2. On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 28th January, 1979 no one turned up when the case was called out for hearing and the petition was, therefore, dismissed for default. It has, however, now been restored and is being disposed of on merits.

3. We noticed that the only point urged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court was one of fact namely that copy of the Inquiry Report and other connected papers were not supplied to him at the time of inquiry. The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the assertion was not correct and that it was patently manifest from the record that copies of the said documents were duly supplied to the petitioner. The learned High Court Judges did not feel inclined to interfere with this findings of fact. Their Lordships also felt that the writ petition merited dismissal on the ground of laches, as it had been filed after mole than a year of passing of the impugned order.

No question of law whatsoever has been raised before us. There is therefore, no ground for the grant of leave. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.

Petition 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.