Lawyers Directory Listing
صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔
Appeals Nos. FD‑338 and 339 of 1985, decided on 13th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Necessary parties‑‑Employee of Cotton Export Corporation transferred to Cotton Trading Corporation‑‑Services terminated by Cotton Trading Corporation‑‑Petition against Cotton Export Corporation‑‑‑ Neither grievance notice served upon authority terminating services nor such authority impleaded‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court for non‑joinder of necessary party.
Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Appellant.
Saeed‑ur‑Rehman for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th October, 1985.
The decisions, dated 19‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad have been challenged in the two appeals captioned above, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their re‑instatement in service were dismissed.
2. The services of the appellants were terminated by the respondents on the ground that the business was being wound up therefore, the services of the appellants were no more required. Learned counsel for the appellants has admitted that the services of the two appellants were not terminated by the respondents but by Cotton Trading Corporation, on 5‑7‑1984 and that the authority that terminated the services of the appellants were not impleaded as party to the grievance petitions of the appellants. The services of the appellants were transferred to the respondents‑ on 12‑5‑1982, whereas the termination order is, dated 5‑7‑1984. If after the transfer of the services of the appellants to the respondents there remained no relationship of employer and worker between the appellants on one side and the Cotton Trading Corporation, on the other, the latter could not terminate the services and if the relationship continued, then the authority that terminated the services was competent but whatever the position may be the authority passed the order was the necessary party and the respondents alone could not be sued. This is also not known if any grievance notice was issued by the appellants to the Cotton Trading Corporation before bringing the grievance petitions. So the petitions were rightly dismissed for non‑joinder of necessary party and there is thus, no scope to set aside the order.
3. As a result, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
A.E. Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer