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. F. D.‑534 of 1982, decided on 12th January, 1983.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 65 (B)‑Grievance notice on employer ‑ Service within three months of impugned order‑Provisions mandatory Notice served much after expiry of limitation period ‑Condonation prayer on grounds that petitioner had been making verbal requests for reinstatement and was promised to be reinstated‑Such grounds, held, not sufficient for condonation of delay ‑ Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant.
Date of hearing o 20th December, 1982.
This appeal emanates from the decision dated 21st August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstate ment in service was dismissed as time‑barred.
2. The order of dismissal was passed in March, 1981 but the date of the grievance notice is 30th Maya 1982. According to the provision of section 25‑A, the appellant was required to serve the grievance notice within three months of the date of his dismissal which ended in January, 1981, since he gave grievance notice after the lapse of about I1 months, it was hopelessly time‑barred. She gave application for condonation of delay under section 65 (B) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but the grounds given are not cogent, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the learned lower Court. The grounds are that the appellant had been asking the Town Committee authorities for reinstatement and they promised to reinstate her but later on flatly refused. She does not say that she brought any appeal or representation, nor any copy of any appeal or representa tion was brought on the lower Court record. Even if it be believed that she had made verbal request, it was not sufficient for condonation of A delay. She should have given the grievance notice within three months. The provisions of section 25‑A are mandatory. Her petition was therefore, rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
3. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.
A. 9, Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer