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. RI‑349 of 1983, decided on 18th March, 1984.
‑--- S. 25‑A read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14‑Grievance petition‑Limitation‑Time spent bona fide in wrong forum to be excluded‑Petitioner seeking remedy before National Industrial Relations Commission where petition dismissed for want of jurisdic tion on date not fixed for announcement of order and copy of order otherwise sent to petitioner‑No proof that letter sent to petitioner actually received by him and petitioner subsequently obtaining attested copy‑Time spent till date of obtaining attested copy of order of NIRC, in circumstances, held to be excluded for purpose of grievance notice and grievance petition.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) read with Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LII of 1952), Ss. 5 & 7‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Establishment covered by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑Grievance petition against workman's dismissal for misconduct‑Labour Court, held, had no jurisdiction and matter within jurisdiction of Magistrate First Class‑Labour Court dismissing petition on grounds of limitation‑Appellate Tribunal while finding that Labour Court had no jurisdiction dismissing appeal with observations that grievance petition returned for presentation to proper forum,
PLD1982SC113ref.
Asadullah Siddiqui for Appellant.
Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 11th March, 1981.
The above‑captioned appeal arises from the decision, dated 23rd May, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed as time‑barred.
2. The appellant was an electrician. He was dismissed on 19th Sep tember, 1981 on the allegation of committing misconduct. Before coming to tire Labour Court he had gone to the N. 1. R. C. His petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 10th January, 1982. Notice Exh. R. 10 with copy of judgment was sent to the appellant by the N. 1. R. C. This means that on 10th January, 1982 the appellant was not present. If 10th January, 1982 had been fixed as the date for announcement of the orders, the N. 1. R. C. would not have sent information to him on 10th January, 1982. Exh. R. 10 was produced by the respondent and not by the appellant. It therefore, cannot be said that the' appellant got information by the said letter. The appellant obtained copy of the order which carries the date of attestation as true copy as 31st January, 1982. According to section 14 o the Limitation Act, the time spent bona fide in a wrong forum is to be excluded. The grievance notice dated 7th February, 1982, therefore, was within time from 31st January, 1982. The petition was lodged on 12t April, 1982. 1t too from the date of grievance notice was within time The learned lower Court thus wrongly held that petition was time barred.
3. However, since Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applies to the respondent, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. Since the appellant went to the N. 1. R. C. and not to the Labour Court in the beginning, it is evident that even according to him, the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, applies to this case. Even otherwise from the notifica tion produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is evident that right from 1980 upto 31st December, 1983 notifications were issued after every six months. At the time the petition was brought to the learned lower Court, the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was applicable, so the petition could not be brought to the said Court. According to P L D 1982 S C 113 a Magistrate 1st Class has jurisdiction.
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer