Pakistan Case Law← Search
1985 PLC 39

SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES, SHEIKHUPURA vs Haji MUHAMMAD KHALIQUE

Citation1985 PLC 39
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Petition No, QSA-685 of 1981
Date1982-07-12
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
ResultRevision accepted

ORDER

' In this revision the order dated 14-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala, has been challenged whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

2. The plea which the petitioner wishes to take by amending the written statement is that the grievance notice served by the respondent upon the petitioner was time-barred. This is true that the application for amendment was not given at the earliest opportunity and was given after ten months of the filing of the written statement. But the amendment sought for touches the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and, therefore, should be allowed. It is the duty of every court first to decide whether it has jurisdiction. If it is held that the grievance notice was time-barred then the very grievance petition would be incompetent and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court excluded.

The learned counsel for the respondent has said that no reason has been given why this plea was not taken in the written statement. The reason given is that through inadvertence such an objection could not be raised. The amendment, if necessary, can be allowed at any stage of the case. If by amendment a new case is to be set up for the adverse party, it cannot be allowed. As mentioned above, the amendment is necessary because if it is found that the grievance notice was in reality time-barred, the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction and the petition would be incompetent. This is true that if the amendment is allowed, the petitioner would be given opportunity to produce evidence on the point and the respondent to rebut the said evidence and thus the case to some extent would be reopened but the inconvenience to which the respondent may be put by the proposed amendment, can be compensated with costs. So, since the amendment is being sought after ten months, I allow it on payment of Rs,100 as costs to the respondent, which will be a condition for the amendment of the written statement. The revision stands accepted in the above term.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search