Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No.LHR‑522 of 1985, decided on 16th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation of‑‑Presented by counsel‑‑Improper presentation‑‑Petitioner appearing personally after expiry of limitation period‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected for improper presentation‑‑Plea that petitioner was present but Labour Court missed to record his presence‑‑Not raised before Labour Court‑‑Rejected at appeal stage.
Raja Zulqarnain for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
The order, dated 3‑8‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected for improper presentation.
2. The grievance petition was presented by the learned counsel for the appellant on 10‑6‑1984. The case was adjourned to 21‑7‑1984, 22‑7‑1984, 24‑9‑1984 and 11‑10‑1984. Before 11‑10‑1984 the appellant never appeared in person and everytime his counsel had been appearing. For the first time the appellant appeared in person on 11‑10‑1984. It would be deemed that the grievance petition was presented on 11‑10‑1984. But by that time the period of limitation for the institution of the grievance petition had expired. Grievance notice is, dated 20‑5‑1984. Period for the presentation of the grievance petition expired on 4‑8‑1984. Since within limitation the grievance petition was not properly presented it was rightly rejected. The appellant was given opportunity to reply to the miscellaneous application of the respondent wherein the latter had asked the Court to reject the grievance petition on the ground of improper presentation but no reply was filed. Request was made for adjournment for filing reply but was rejected.
3. It has been argued that the appellant was present on 10‑6‑1984 when the grievance petition was presented but the Court missed to record his presence. No such objection was raised before the learned lower Court so now it is too late to say so. If reply to the miscellaneous application of the respondent had been filed and such an objection had been taken, the learned lower Court may have given the appellant an opportunity to prove the contention but no such plea was raised.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
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