Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS Respondent: DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi Title: MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD Case No.: Appeal No, HYD-152 of 1990 Date of Judgment:1991-01-20 Reported As: 1992 PLC 704 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 9-5-1990; whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rafiq Ahmad, A.-G.P. For the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 3. The appellant was removed from service on 11-1-1989, vide order, dated 124-1989. Whereas, he served grievance notiee upon the respondents on 17-5-1989. The case of the appellant is that his services were terminated on 20-2-1989, therefore, the notice was within time. Annexure `A/1' which was filed by the appellant alongwith his grievance petition shows that he was removed from service on 10-1-1989. This is the document produced by the appellant himself and it has come from the possession of the appellant. As such, it would be correct. Grievance notice, dated 17-5-1989 is obviously time-barred as it is beyond the period of 3 months as prescribed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly held that the grievance petition is time-barred. I see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.