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

ASHIQ HUSSAIN versus THE PROJECT DIRECTOR SCARP (N)


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 Complaint Request Appellant not seeking any response representing the complaint for redressal, submitting a complaint request which was barred from time to time, no proof of any advance within the stipulated period. Not filed in: Request properly excluded Prohibited
1985 P L C 93

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

ASHIQ HUSSAIN

Versus

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR SCARP (N)

Appeal No.1HR-796 of 1982, decided on 8th March, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--

---S. 25-A--Grievance petition--Appellant making belated representation for redress of grievance--Receiving no reply, filing grievance petition which was treated as barred by time--No evidence of any earlier representation having been filed within prescribed time--Held: Petition rightly dismissed as time-barred.

Asmat Kamal for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 1st March, 1982.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from the decision dated 10-12-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No.1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his regularization as Lineman II was dismissed as time-barred. .

The appellant was in the beginning appointed as Lineman on work-charge basis. In 1976 his colleagues were regularised as Linemen II but the appellant as Assistant Lineman. For the redress this grievance he had given the grievance petition on 9-9-1982. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had been as urged in his petition making representations which have been as yet reply to so his grievance petition is not time-barred.

He has made reference to letter R.6 under which an application of the appellant was forwarded to the Project Director Scarp Electrification (N). This letter is dated 30-10-1978. The appellant was regularised as Assistant Lineman on 5-8-1976 but he made representation which was forwarded under R. 6 on 30-10-1978 after more than two years, so time for bringing grievance petition had before the representation. The representation therefore did not extend the time. Learned counsel says that this was the first representation. If this so then there was no evidence about any earlier representation which may have been made before the expiry of the period prescribed by section 25-A for making grievance petition. Grievance notice was given on 16-8-1980 and the grievance petition was made on 9-9-1980. So grievance notice was time-barred and the grievance petition was also from the date of the grievance notice time-barred. If reply to the grievance is received grievance petition can be made within 2 months of the service of the grievance notice. Grievance petition, therefore, could be made upto 1st of September, 1980 but it was made on 9-9-1980. The learned lower' Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the petition as time-barred.

As upshot of the discussion made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

M. I.

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
advocate for immigration from Rahimyar Khan 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.