whether he could approach the Industrial Court or not cannot in any way help him. In the case of Muqeem Beg v. Road Transport Corporation — 1968 PLC 155

Citation: 1968 PLC 155

Court: Industrial Court

Year: 1968

Decision Date: 1968-09-21

Parties: ABDUL, BASHIR vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE

Headnotes

Fazli-Khaliq Khan, Chairman of the Industrial Court, Karachi, while dealing with the question of delay in presenting an application under section 31 observed:-- "The petitioner has not given any reason for the inordinate delay in seeking his remedy within reasonable time. The law presumed that an aggrieved party should be prompt and diligent in the enforcement of his rights and any laches on his part will be taken to mean that he was not serious enough to seek his remedy but was prompted from outside quarter.

Judgment Text

Court Name: Industrial Court Judge(s): Ch. Rehmatullah, Mushtaq Hussain Munir Title: ABDUL, BASHIR vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE Case No.: Date of Judgment:1968-09-21 Reported As: 1970 PLC 359 Result: accordingly, reject Judgment AWARD MITSHTAQ HUSSAIN MUNIR (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, by Abdul Bashir, a Senior Clerk of the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi. His annual increment was withheld for a period of one year from 1-6- 1965 (F N) to 31-5-1966 (A N), with cumulative effect "for commit--ting the offence of negligence and dereliction of duty, misconduct and insubordination", by the District Manager by his order dated 16th/18th October 1964. He has challenged the aforesaid order by way of this application and has requested for its cancellation. Brief facts of the case are, that the Assistant Statistical officer called upon the petitioner to explain, as to why after preparing "Tyre Removal Statement" for the month of March 1964, he did not despatch it to the Headquarters Office and the same was still lying with him. The Statistical Officer pointed out, that his inaction indicated, that either he was not taking interest in his work or his integrity was doubtful. The letter of the Assistant Statistical Officer is Exh.R.1. In answer to this, the petitioner gave his explication Exh R.2wherein while explaining the delay he remarked :- "This inefficiency purely devolves on you and…

Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.