Article 199 reads with the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), limiting the grievance notice to the section 25A2 Complaint Notice, dismissing the Complaint Notice, stating that the Complaint Notice was not submitted in due time Labor Court view at that time the complaint notice time was more than 2 months The court accepted the constitutional application against the Labor Court order stating that the due date for the complaint notice is 3 months and that the notice of complaint is fixed period. It is feasible to stay within and the Labor Court has been remanded for such a plea decision. Has been challenged. The Single Judge has not considered the effect of Section 25A (6) of the Applicable Services (Restoration) Act, 1952, and the effect of Section 25A (6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Such ground referee was not used to insist on opening a case before the single judge, without any error, failure to appear before a single judge's decision, review request dismissed.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. S‑329 of 1978 in Constitutional Petition No. 905 of 1975, on 15th; decided March, 1982.
Constitution of
Pakistan
(1973)‑‑--
--‑‑Art. 199 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII Of 1969), S. 25‑A2‑Grievance notice upon employer‑Limitation- Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on ground that grievance notice was not served within prescribed period‑View of Labour Court that time for grievance notice was 2 months‑High Court accepting constitutional petition against order of Labour Court hold ing that prescribed period for grievance notice was 3 months and that grievance notice being within prescribed period petition was maintainable and as such petition remanded to Labour Court for decision afresh‑Order of High Court challenged before Division Bench on ground that Single Judge had not taken into considera tion effects of application. of Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952 and . of subsection (6) of S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance ‑ Question of effect of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 not urged before Single Judge‑ Re‑opening of case on such ground refused‑No error, held, appear ing apparent on face of judgment of Single Judge, hence review petition dismissed.
Hamid Siddiqui for Petitioner.
Farooq H. Naik for Respondent No. 3.
ORDER AJMAL MIAN, J.‑
This is Review Petition of the judgment, dated 29th April, 1978 passed by Abdul Hafeez Memon, J. (as he then was). In support of the above review petition it has been urged by Mr. Farooq H. Naik learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the learned Single Judge erred in not taking into consideration subsection (6) of S. 25‑A of the I. R. O. which was very much in the field at the time when the order of terminating the petitioner's service was passed. From the contents of the judgment under review we notice that the question before the learned Single Judge was whether under section 25‑A the period for serving grie vance notice from the date of cause of action was 3 months or 2 months. The learned Single Judge has held that in view of the plain language of subsection (1) of section 25‑A, the period is 3 months and not 2 months. It may also be observed that the above legal position was conceded by Mr.. Raza Abbas Naqvi the then learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. It was also contended by Mr. Farooq Naik that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the effect of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services Act, 1952. From the judgment under review it seems that the case has been remanded to the lower Court for deciding afresh according to law. The effect of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services Act was not urged before the learned ,g Single Judge and, therefore, we cannot re‑open the case for fresh points.
We do not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment or the record warranting the review of the judgment. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.
A. E. Review application dismissed.
