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

XEN HIGHWAY DIVISION NO. II, LARKAN.A versus MANZOOR AHMED


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 37 (Appeal Of Labor Court Decision After 31 Deadline But No Delay Reason Showed

1982 P L C 1037

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]

Present: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal

XEN HIGHWAY DIVISION No. II, LARKAN.A AND ANOTHER

Versus

MANZOOR AHMED

Appeal No. SUK‑602 of 1981, decided on 5th May, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑‑

-----S. 37(31‑‑Appeal from decision of Labour Court‑Appeal filed after having become time‑barred but no grounds shown for delay‑Appeal dismissed.

Manzar Alan for Appellants.

Hassan Hameedi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th May, 1982.

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the derision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 28th May, 1981, holding that the removal from service of the respondent workman was invalid, in that the removal was effected without giving the respondent a show‑cause notice or charge sheet and holding a domestic enquiry.

A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal has been raised by Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned counsel for the respondent workman. He has submitted that the impugned decision was given on 28th May, 1981. The endorsement on the certified copy of the decision filed with the memo. of appeal shows that the copy of the deci sion was ready on 28th May, 1981. However, an application for being furnished the copy was submitted on behalf of the appellants on 8tht June, 1981. On the same date, copy of the decision was delivered to the appellants. Since the appeal was preferred on 28th October, 1981, and no grounds have been shown for the condonation of delay, the appeal is I hopelessly time‑barred and is accordingly dismissed on that ground. It has been my experience that appeals by Government agencies are generally delayed. This is unfortunate as not only the appeals in such cases become time‑barred but the Government has unecessarily to incur and pay liabilities which may not really be due. The said expenditure, in turn, falls upon the public from whom it is recovered in the form of taxes, etc.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Engineer, High Ways, for making enquiries as to who is responsible for allowing the appeal to be time‑barred and for taking such action against the persons responsible for the delay as may be considered appropriate.

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
jobs for advocates from Dhirkot 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.