| Case ID |
2bdb5612-bc4b-4a9e-83be-eae5b97b0631 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
SUK-533 of 1991 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 07, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 07, 1992 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed due to a delay of approximately 11 months in filing. The appellant's application for condonation of delay did not adequately explain each day of the delay, nor did it provide sufficient cause to justify the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the appellant's representative was careless in handling the appeal process, which ultimately led to the dismissal. |
| Summary |
In the case of SUK-533 of 1991, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of Sindh dealt with an appeal involving the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Limitation Act. The appeal was filed with significant delay, prompting the court to dismiss it due to insufficient justification for the delay. The case highlights the importance of timely appeal filings and the need for clear explanations for any delays. The decision underscores the responsibilities of legal representatives in managing cases diligently. Keywords for SEO include 'Industrial Relations Ordinance', 'Limitation Act', 'appeal dismissal', 'legal responsibilities', and 'court decision'. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AGHA ALI HYDER
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Sattar Khatri,
Shabbir Ahmed Awan
|
| Petitioners |
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RIGHT BANK TUBEWELL DIVISION, RATODerE
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD HASSAN
|
| Citations |
1993 SLD 1292,
1993 PLC 388
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
|
| Sections |
38,
5
|