Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NIAZ HUSSAIN VS Respondent: SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
1988 P L C 410
1988 P L C 410
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]
Present: Al i Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal
NIAZ HUSSAIN
Versus
SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Appeal No.HYD‑219 of 1987, decided on 22nd September, 1987
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Limitation‑‑Petition filed 10 years after cause of action, held, was rightly dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred.
Wahid Bux for Appellant. Raes M. Mushtaq for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th September. 1987
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 4‑7‑198.7, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case were that appellant claimed to have been employed as Cleaner in the respondent establishment and was suspended for an indefinite period, vide charge‑sheet, dated, 4‑4‑1977, in connection with a Criminal case then pending before a Criminal Court. The appellant further claimed that though he was acquitted by the order of the Criminal Court on 12‑12‑1979, yet, in spite of several applications representations made to the respondent corproation he was not allowed to resume his duties, during a long and continuous period upto 2‑6‑1987, when, he had finally served upon the respondent corporation his grievance notice and as it was also not replied, therefore, he submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, who had passed the impugned order dismissing his petition in limine on the ground that it was hopelessly time‑barred, misconceived, untenable and unfounded having been filed after a long period of 10 years from the actual date of cause of action, hence, the present appeal.
3. I have heard, Mr. Wahid Bux the learned representative for the appellant and have also perused the impugned order. I find nothing wrong with the impugned order which is well reasoned. Mr. B Wahid Bux has no legs to stand in support of his appeal and I would maintain the impugned order. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
A. E. /1118/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.