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. SG‑103 of 1986, decided on 31st March, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Delayed grievance notice‑‑Time lapsed between date of impugned order and date of grievance notice, held, could not be condoned.
Naseer Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1986.
The decision dated 22‑1‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5 Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service has been dismissed as time‑barred.
2. The services of the appellant were terminated on 30‑8‑1983. He was poultry attendant. Order of termination is Exh.P.10. Ground given for termination is that approval of the continuance of the scheme 'Third Education Project has not been received.
3. It has been argued that it was not proved by the respondent that the order of termination was served upon the appellant. On the face of it the argument is without any force. Since from 31‑8‑1983 the appellant was not allowed to work, he had come to know that he was no more in service. It has also been argued that he had sent representation but no reply was received. He sent application to the President of Pakistan, which was sent to Secretary Agriculture but there is no evidence that it was forwarded or reached the Director of
Agriculture In service Agricultural institute Training, Sargodha or Director‑General Agriculture, Lahore who were sued. So, the time elapsed between the date of termination of service i.e. 30 8‑1983 and date of service of grievance notice i.e. 24‑7‑1985 could not be condoned. The grievance petition was thus rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer