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.
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi,
Appellate Tribunal
Sh. ASHFAQUE AHMAD
Versus
PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION and another
Appeals Nos.LHR‑289 and LHR‑292 of 1985, decided on 8th February, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Seniority also disputed‑‑Petition resisted on grounds of limitation‑‑Application for condonation of delay moved‑‑Labour Court passing order without recording findings on point of limitation‑‑Seniority point also not decided‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, refraining to express opinion on question of seniority so as not to destroy right of appeal to unsuccessful party‑‑Impugned order set aside and case remanded to Labour Court for redecision after findings on point of limitation and condonation of delay.
Khalid Farooq for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent No.l.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986.
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 8‑4‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore accepting the grievance petition of Sh. Ashfaque Ahmad (hereinafter called as the appellant) but not deciding as to who out of the appellant and Abdul Razzaque (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2) is senior. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Since the point of seniority has not been decided, I am not in a position to express any opinion on the point. If any opinion is expressed, unsuccessful party will loose right of appeal.
3. The other defect is that the objection of respondent No.2 was that the grievance petition and the grievance notice of the appellant were time‑barred and the appellant had moved an application for condonation of delay also, but the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon.
4. As a result of the observations made above, both the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for re-decision after giving finding on the point of condonation of delay and determining as to who out of the appellant and respondent No.2 is senior.
5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of PUTC in both the appeals, therefore, the appeals have been decided ex parte against the said respondent.
A. E.
Appeals accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer