Case ID |
439ff4cd-d556-4c2d-8717-89287cecb78e |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
MN-454 of 1987 |
Decision Date |
Jan 12, 1988 |
Hearing Date |
Jan 09, 1988 |
Decision |
The appeal was dismissed in limine, as the Labour Court's decision was upheld. The court noted that the grievance petition was time-barred and that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the condonation of delay. The Labour Court emphasized that it is not the court's role to investigate on behalf of the parties and that the appellant had the responsibility to prove that the grievance notice was filed within the required time frame. The court found that the previous grievance petition's withdrawal date was not documented, which further complicated the appellant's case. |
Summary |
This case revolves around the appeal filed by Muhammad Salman Khurshid against the Divisional Superintendent of Pakistan Railways, Multan, concerning the dismissal of his grievance petition due to it being time-barred. The appeal highlights key aspects of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, particularly sections 25-A, 36, and 38(3-a). The Labour Appellate Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely filing and the necessity for appellants to provide adequate evidence for their claims. The decision reinforces the principle that courts must rely on the evidence presented and cannot act as advocates for either party. This case serves as a precedent for similar disputes in labor law, especially regarding procedural compliance and the responsibilities of appellants in grievance matters. |
Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
|
Entities Involved |
|
Judges |
Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,
Muhammad Salman Khurshid
|
Lawyers |
S.A. Latif
|
Petitioners |
Muhammad Salman Khurshid
|
Respondents |
Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan
|
Citations |
1989 SLD 2434,
1989 PLC 826
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance
|
Sections |
25-A,
36,
38(3-a)
|