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. FD‑20 of 1978, decided on 29th May, 1978.
‑‑‑S.25‑A(6)‑‑Grievance petition for re‑instatement‑‑Filed not within two months of cause of grievance‑‑Time‑barred.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 29th May, 1978.
This is an appeal against the decision, dated 17‑12‑1977 of Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad.
2. Syed Imtiaz Hussain Shah, appellant joined service as an Oil‑Greeser on 2‑3‑1976 and was found medically fit. He deposited security of Rs.100 and started performing his duties. On 21‑6‑1976 he, was refused duty. He served a grievance notice on 22‑6‑1976 and filed his petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court on 13‑10‑1977. Alongwith his petition he also filed an application for condonation of delay, in which it was mentioned that he had served a grievance notice and since no reply was received, the delay in filing the petition be condoned.
3. The learned Labour Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by time.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, Syed Imtiaz Hussain Shah, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned representative of the appellant contended that the claim of the appellant was not for re‑instatement but for the enforcement of right under section 2‑A, of W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and, therefore, grievance notice was necessary.
6. From the perusal of the petition I find that the claim was for re‑instatement and it was also mentioned therein that the terms and conditions of service of the appellant had not been provided, which was necessary under section 2‑A of W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. I am afraid this contention has no force, because the main claim of the appellant was for re‑instatement and in view of subsection (6) of section 25‑A, of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was still in force at that A time, the petition had to be filed within two months of 21‑6‑1976, which was not done. Under these circumstances, the petition was clearly, barred by time.
7. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby 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