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.
Application No. KAR-214 of 1983, decided on 8th July, 1985.
---Ss.15 & 17--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38-- Revision against order of Labour Court in appeal against order of Authority--Appellate Authority having dealt with limitation point properly and coming to conclusion that appeal was filed after limitation period- There being no illegality and impropriety in order under revision, Labour Appellate Tribunal refused to interfere with such order in revisional jurisdiction and dismissed petition in circumstances.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Appellant.
N.R. Dubash for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th July, 1985.
A suo motu revision was admitted on 10-7-1983, by this Tribunal. The revision is designed to criticise the order passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who dismissed the appeal of Manzir Ali, the appellant on 11-6-1983.
2. Briefly the facts relevant are that the appellant, Manzir Ali was employed with the Premier Mercantile Service Ltd. as a Driver and he filed the claim before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act regarding the monthly salary; encashment of annual leave; payment of termination notice and payment of overtime dues and gratuity etc. The total amount claimed was Rs.30,320. The respondent Company answered the claim to be false and that he was not entitled to the claim. The appellant was a retired person on attaining the age of superannuation from the Government service some nine or ten years ago. The respondent on humanitarian grounds temporarily appointed the appellant on a post of Driver and the last salary drawn by the appellant was Rs.650. The appellant suddenly deserted the respondent 0r 10-10-1980 and did not report on duty thence after. The allegations of claim were false and baseless. The Authority under the payment of Wages Act dismissed his claim on 21-8-1982.
3. The appeal before the Sind Labour Court No. V was also dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred. The Authority announced the Judgment on 21-8-1982. The appellant failed apply for certified copy till 26-8-1982 and he was then supplied with the certified copy but he filed the appeal before the Labour Court oh 25-9-1982, whereas he should have filed the appeal on 21-9-1982. He came under the limitation of five days for which he made no application for condonation. The learned Labour Court dealt with the claim any maintained the order of the Authority.
4. In the revision application, Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed made the arguments and I find that there is no illegality in the order of the appellate Authority. He has dealt with the limitation point properly and actually he has come to the conclusion that 4e appeal was filed five days after the limitation period. He has given the proper reasons for his order. I failed to find any illegality and I also failed to find that the order was improper. No legal flaw was pointed out to me. As regards the limitation point, the learned counsel made allegations, which were hot on record of the file.
5. This revision is, therefore, dismissed.
A.A.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer