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. FD‑412 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Grievance petition presented by counsel‑‑Petitioner appearing in person after expiry of limitation period‑‑Labour Court after hearing arguments on point of presentation dismissing petition as not maintainable‑‑Order announced without preparing and signing same‑‑Labour Court, held, should announce judgment after preparing and signing same‑‑Defect in instant case however, held, not beneficial to petitioner/ appellant because order was announced after full opportunity to appellant and it would be of no avail if case was sent back to Labour Court for recording of judgment‑‑Labour Court however, directed by appellate Tribunal to announce decision in future after signing same.
P L D 1976 Lah. 1162 rel.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
Mahboob Alam for Respondent.
26th October, 1985.
The order, dated 24‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected on the ground that its presentation by the lawyer was not proper.
2. The finding appears to be correct. Grievance notice is, dated 20‑8‑1984, The petition was presented by the lawyer on 19‑2‑1984. The appellant appeared in person for the first time on 19‑11‑1984, whereas the period of limitation for the proper presentation of the grievance) petition had expired on 3‑11‑1984.
3. It has been argued by the learned representative of the appellant that the notice of the miscellaneous application of the respondent was not given, nor any opportunity of production of evidence was affored on the point. The argument has no force. In the presence of the learned representative application for rejection of the grievance petition was given on 24‑6‑1985 and arguments of both the parties were heard. If the learned representative of the appellant wanted to file reply to the petition and to produce evidence, he could have asked the Court but it was not done. It is thus clear that the learned representative contended himself with advancing arguments on the point. He was fully heard, so now cannot say that no opportunity of reply and hearing was given.
4. The other argument of the learned representative is that orders were announced without preparing and singing the same. In this respect he has cited P L D 1976 Lah. 1162. This is true that it has been held therein that like other Courts the judgments of the Labour Courts should be announced after they have been prepared and signed but the defect is not beneficial to the appellant. The only result will be to direct the learned lower Court to prepare the judgment and to announce it after signing the same. Since the learned representative has got full opportunity of hearing before this Tribunal, it will be of no avail if the case is sent back for recording of judgment.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the learned lower Court is directed to announce the decisions in future after signing them.
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