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‑203 of 1985, decided on 24th July, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Limitation‑‑Grievance notice served by lawyer‑‑Grievance petition dismissed for reasons that grievance notice was not valid‑‑Petitioner same day serving fresh notice under own signature and then filing grievance petition within time‑‑Petition dismissed in limine on grounds that grievance notice was time‑barred though application for condonation also filed alongwith petition‑‑Ruling of Supreme Court in P L D 1980 S C 80 that grievance notice by Lawyer was not valid was a judgment in personum hence there was no presumption that every body knows same‑‑Application for condonation of delay, in circumstances, held, was worth consideration and it could not be said that grievance petition did not disclose cause of grievance‑‑Order of Labour Court, dismissing grievance petition in limine, held, not maintainable hence set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for decision on limitation point afresh after opportunity of evidence to parties.
P L D 1980 S C 80 ref.
Nemo for Appellant.
Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 in person.
Date of hearing: 16th July, 1985.
The decision, dated 17‑3‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed in limine on the ground that the second grievance notice was time‑barred.
2. The earlier grievance petition was dismissed for the reasons that the grievance notice was invalid having been given by the lawyer and not by the appellant. On the same day on which the petition was dismissed the appellant sent grievance notice with his own signatures and within time brought the grievance petition. He had filed alongwith the grievance petition an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. If the learned lower Court was not prepared to accept the affidavit, it should have given opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence to prove the ground given for condonation. The ruling of the Supreme Court reported in P L D 1980 S C 80 was a judgment in personum and could be in the knowledge of the parties to it only. Unlike codified law the decisions are not notified in the Gazette so there is no presumption that every body knows them. As soon as the appellant learnt from the previous decision of the learned lower Court that the previous grievance notice was invalid, he without loss of time sent fresh notice himself on the same day. The petition for condonation of delay, therefore, was worth consideration and it cannot be said that the grievance petition did not disclose any cause of grievance. The order of dismissal of the petition in limine, therefore, is not maintainable.
3. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after inviting written statement from the respondent and affording proper opportunity B to both the parties to produce evidence the point of limitation be decided afresh. If the grievance notice is found to be within time, the case be decided on merit.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer