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

versus


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 Complaint Notice Service did not prove the complaint request, in the circumstances, was rightly dismissed by the Labor Court

1984 P L C 1144

[Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

SHAH NAWAZ

Versus

AKRAM SILK FACTORY, GUJRANWALA

Appeal No. GA‑105 of 1982, heard on 27th April, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑------

----S. 25‑A ‑ Grievance notice ‑ Service not proved ‑ Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.

Sardar Muhammad Adeeb, Representative for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 27th April, 1982.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 25th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a weaver and asserting that on 8th December, 1980 his services were terminated orally brought a grievance petition. The stand taken by the respondent was that the appellant had tendered his resignation which had been accepted. In the written statement it was also contended that no grievance notice had been served. The appellant tendered in evidence copy of grievance notice Exh. P. 1, postal receipt Exhs. P. 2 and A/D receipt Exh. P. 3. The signatures appearing on the A/D receipt purporting to be of the respondent do not tally with his admitted signatures appearing on various documents i. e. written statement, application for adjournment, application for copy of the impugned decision, and receipt of delivery of the copy. Even to a naked eye it is clear that the signatures do not tally in characteristics as well as in similarity. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the appellant to have examined the postman to prove that the notice was delivered to the respondent and to none else and that the signatures appearing on the A/D receipt were made by the respondent. The learned trial Judge has rightly said that the signature on the A/D receipt do not tally and that the service of grievance notice is not proved. Since the service of grievance notice is not proved the other matters cannot be gone into. The resignation is also on the record which prima facie shows that it bears the signatures of the appellant. It carries the date as 9th December 1980 and on the same day it was accepted by the respondent. The grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.

A.E. Appeal 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best law firms from Bagh 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.