Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed MUHAMMAD SARWAR VS Respondent: Messrs AL-GHAZI TRACTORS Ltd.
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: Syed MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs Messrs AL-GHAZI TRACTORS Ltd. Case No.: Appeal No.LHR-522 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1985-10-15 Reported As: 1986 PLC 429 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT The order, dated 3-8-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected for improper presentation. 2. The grievance petition was presented by the learned counsel for the appellant on 10-6-1984. The case was adjourned to 21-7-1984, 22-7-1984, 24-9-1984 and 11-10-1984. Before 11-10-1984 the appellant never appeared in person and every time his counsel had been appearing. For the first time the appellant appeared in person on 11-10-1984. It would be deemed that the grievance petition was presented on 11-10-1984. But by that time the period of limitation for the institution of the grievance petition had expired. Grievance notice is, dated 20-5-1984. Period for the presentation of the grievance petition expired on 4-8-1984. Since within limitation the grievance petition was not properly presented it was rightly rejected. The appellant was given opportunity to reply to the miscellaneous application of the respondent wherein the latter had asked the Court to reject the grievance petition on the ground of improper presentation but no reply was filed. Request was made for adjournment for filing reply but was rejected. 3. It has been argued that the appellant was present on 10-6-1984 when the grievance petition was presented but the Court missed to record his presence. No such objection was raised before the learned lower Court so now it is too late to say so. If reply to the miscellaneous application of the respondent had been filed and such an objection had been taken, the learned lower Court may have given the appellant an opportunity to prove the contention but no such plea was raised. 4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.