Nestle
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Nestle as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,460
- Pages: 10
INVOICE Kindly arrange to make payment of the following amount and send cheque to the undersigned on the address given below:
i)
Retainership fee for the months of May & June:
ii)
Professional fee including all expenses for
Rs. 30,000/-
conducting suit before Civil Judge & M. Garh, titled “Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. & another”. iii)
Rs. 30,000/-
Visit fee 3.5.03, 10.5.03, 12.5.03, 13.5.03, 14.5.03, 16.5.03 & 17.5.03 to Kot Addu & Muzaffargarh, 7 days @ Rs. 3750/- per day.
iv)
Rs. 26,250/-
Visit to Islamababad on 6/7.5.03 (2 days), visit to Islamabad-Lahore on 19/20/21.5.03 (2½ days) & visit to Karach on 26/27/28.5.03 (2½ days), 7 days @ Rs. 5,000/- per day.
Rs. 35,000/Rs. 121,250/-
(Rupees one hundred twenty one thousand, two hundred and fifty only) Yours faithfully,
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan. Forwarded to: Chief Executive Officer, Kot Addu Power Co.
The Incharge, Legal Department, NESTLE Milk Pak Ltd. 308, Upper Mall, LAHORE. Attn:
Mr. Faisal Raza
Dear Sir, As desired, I am enclosing copy of petition filed by Mr. Abdul Hafeez in the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, along-with draft of written statement and professional fee invoice. Thanking you. Yours faithfully,
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate
Before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Camp at Sahiwal.
Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Manager, Nestle Milkpak & 2 others
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the undersigned advocates have been engaged by the respondents in the above-titled case. The power of attorney duly executed shall be submitted on the next date of hearing.
Dated: 26.5.03 Submitted by: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, CAMP AT SAHIWAL.
Petition No. _______/2003 Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Nestle Milkpak (Ltd.) etc.
APPLICATION U/S 46 OF I.R.O. 2002. Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.
Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.
That grievance notice and grievance petition are hopelessly time-barred, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
2.
That
the
petitioner
having
voluntarily
tendered
his
resignation, which was accepted and duly conveyed to him, is no more an aggrieved workman and is not entitled to file the above-titled application before this Hon’ble Court. 3.
That the petitioner filed a Grievance Petition before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed on 26.3.2002. And as such he is estopped to file the instant application on the same cause of action. Hence, he has no cause of action to file the instant application.
4.
That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present application. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
5.
That the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
ON FACTS: 1.
That para No. 1 is admitted to the extent that the petitioner was employed on 23.8.2001 as Account Supervisor and on completion of 3 months probationary period, he services were regularised. Rest of the contents of the para are denied being incorrect.
2.
That para No. 2 is not admitted. It is submitted that, actually, he was performing the duties of Supervisory Nature.
3.
That parat No. 3 is denied being incorrect.
4.
That the contents of para No. 4 are denied being incorrect. It is incorrect that the resignation was obtained through the help of Police Inspector of P.S. Pakpattan Sharif by threatening the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner himself submitted his resignation and which was duly accepted and conveyed to him.
5.
That the contents of para No. 5 are denied being incorrect. As regards the resignation of the petitioner, it was a volunteer one and was accepted and conveyed to the petitioner. Rest of the contents of para are denied being incorrect.
6.
That the contents of para No. 6 are totally denied being incorrect.
7.
That the contents of para No. 7 are denied being incorrect. However, it is correct that the petitioner has yet not received his dues.
8.
That the contents of para No. 8 are not denied. But it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was dismissed having not pressed, therefore, the present application on the same cause of action is not at all maintainable.
9.
That the contents of para No. 9 are admitted to the extent that the petitioner served a grievance a notice, which was duly replied. Reply to grievance notice is valid and proper.
10.
That the contents of para No. 10 are not admitted correct.
11.
That the contents of para No. 11 are not admitted correct.
12.
That the contents of para No. 12 are not admitted correct. Prayer clause of the petitioner is totally wrong and baseless and the application may kindly be dismissed with special costs. Humble Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3,
Dated: _______
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on the ___ day of June, 2003 that all the contents of the above-titled written statement are true and correct to the best of knowledge
and
belief
of
the
respondents. Respondents
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, CAMP AT SAHIWAL.
Petition No. _______/2003 Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Nestle Milkpak (Ltd.) etc.
APPLICATION U/S 46 OF I.R.O. 2002. Reply to application U/s 5 of Limitation Act.
Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.
That the petitioner is failed to explain reason for the delay of each and every day in filing the petition as held by the Superior Courts of the country.
2.
That petitioner has given no cogent grounds to file the application for condonation of delay. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
3.
That ignorance of law cannot be made an excuse, the petitioner should have first served the grievance notice and then should have filed the grievance petition as per provision of law.
4.
That the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the present application as the earlier petition filed by the applicant was dismissed having not been pressed as is evident from the order of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer dated 26.3.2003.
5.
That delay caused by the petitioner is intentional and not an accidental one.
6.
That a valuable right is accrued to the respondents and same cannot be snatched straight away.
ON FACTS: 1.
Admitted.
2.
Not admitted correct. The fact remains that ignorance of law is no excuse at all. Detailed reply has been given in the preliminary objection No. 2.
3.
It is admitted to the extent that the petitioner filed a grievance petition on 26.10.02 without first serving the respondents with grievance notice and the petition was adjourned for four times and thereafter the petition was dismissed having not pressed. Therefore the present application is liable to be dismissed.
4.
It is submitted that grievance notice as well as grievance petition is not legal and valid in the eyes of law.
5.
Not admitted. Delay is intentional. Ignorance of law is not an excuse at all
6.
Not admitted. There is no chance of irreparable loss to be caused to the petitioner. Hence, the application in hand merits dismissal. Affidavit is wrong and false. Counter affidavit is attached. Prayer of the applicant/petitioner is wrong and defective. Same may be dismissed with costs. Humble Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3,
Dated: _______
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, CAMP AT SAHIWAL.
Petition No. _______/2003 Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Nestle Milkpak (Ltd.) etc.
APPLICATION U/S 46 OF I.R.O. 2002. Reply to application U/s 5 of Limitation Act.
AFFIDAVIT of: Zaffar Iqbal, Milk Collection Coordinator, Nestle Milkpak (Pvt.) Ltd. Pakpattan Sharif. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1.
That the above-titled reply to application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which may be considered as part and parcel of this affidavit.
2.
That all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief & nothing has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on the ____day of June 2003 that all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; & nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Ph # 061-589175 Fax: 783026 Mob: 0303-6667566
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate, M.A. LL.B.
Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, 254-Fateh Sher Colony, Sahiwal.
Dear Sir, As discussed, I am enclosing followings: i)
Copy of application U/S-46 (i) I.R.O. 2002 along-with all the annexes.
ii)
Copy of reply to application, condonation of delay filed by respondents.
iii)
Photocopy of resignation. Regards. Yours sincerely,
Dated: 04.07.03 RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
i)
Retainership fee for the months of May & June:
ii)
Professional fee including all expenses for
Rs. 30,000/-
conducting suit before Civil Judge & M. Garh, titled “Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co. & another”. iii)
Rs. 30,000/-
Visit fee 3.5.03, 10.5.03, 12.5.03, 13.5.03, 14.5.03, 16.5.03 & 17.5.03 to Kot Addu & Muzaffargarh, 7 days @ Rs. 3750/- per day.
iv)
Rs. 26,250/-
Visit to Islamababad on 6/7.5.03 (2 days), visit to Islamabad-Lahore on 19/20/21.5.03 (2½ days) & visit to Karach on 26/27/28.5.03 (2½ days), 7 days @ Rs. 5,000/- per day.
Rs. 35,000/Rs. 121,250/-
(Rupees one hundred twenty one thousand, two hundred and fifty only) Yours faithfully,
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan. Forwarded to: Chief Executive Officer, Kot Addu Power Co.
The Incharge, Legal Department, NESTLE Milk Pak Ltd. 308, Upper Mall, LAHORE. Attn:
Mr. Faisal Raza
Dear Sir, As desired, I am enclosing copy of petition filed by Mr. Abdul Hafeez in the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, along-with draft of written statement and professional fee invoice. Thanking you. Yours faithfully,
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate
Before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Camp at Sahiwal.
Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Manager, Nestle Milkpak & 2 others
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the undersigned advocates have been engaged by the respondents in the above-titled case. The power of attorney duly executed shall be submitted on the next date of hearing.
Dated: 26.5.03 Submitted by: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 38-Muhammadan Block, District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, CAMP AT SAHIWAL.
Petition No. _______/2003 Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Nestle Milkpak (Ltd.) etc.
APPLICATION U/S 46 OF I.R.O. 2002. Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.
Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.
That grievance notice and grievance petition are hopelessly time-barred, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
2.
That
the
petitioner
having
voluntarily
tendered
his
resignation, which was accepted and duly conveyed to him, is no more an aggrieved workman and is not entitled to file the above-titled application before this Hon’ble Court. 3.
That the petitioner filed a Grievance Petition before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed on 26.3.2002. And as such he is estopped to file the instant application on the same cause of action. Hence, he has no cause of action to file the instant application.
4.
That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present application. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
5.
That the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
ON FACTS: 1.
That para No. 1 is admitted to the extent that the petitioner was employed on 23.8.2001 as Account Supervisor and on completion of 3 months probationary period, he services were regularised. Rest of the contents of the para are denied being incorrect.
2.
That para No. 2 is not admitted. It is submitted that, actually, he was performing the duties of Supervisory Nature.
3.
That parat No. 3 is denied being incorrect.
4.
That the contents of para No. 4 are denied being incorrect. It is incorrect that the resignation was obtained through the help of Police Inspector of P.S. Pakpattan Sharif by threatening the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner himself submitted his resignation and which was duly accepted and conveyed to him.
5.
That the contents of para No. 5 are denied being incorrect. As regards the resignation of the petitioner, it was a volunteer one and was accepted and conveyed to the petitioner. Rest of the contents of para are denied being incorrect.
6.
That the contents of para No. 6 are totally denied being incorrect.
7.
That the contents of para No. 7 are denied being incorrect. However, it is correct that the petitioner has yet not received his dues.
8.
That the contents of para No. 8 are not denied. But it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was dismissed having not pressed, therefore, the present application on the same cause of action is not at all maintainable.
9.
That the contents of para No. 9 are admitted to the extent that the petitioner served a grievance a notice, which was duly replied. Reply to grievance notice is valid and proper.
10.
That the contents of para No. 10 are not admitted correct.
11.
That the contents of para No. 11 are not admitted correct.
12.
That the contents of para No. 12 are not admitted correct. Prayer clause of the petitioner is totally wrong and baseless and the application may kindly be dismissed with special costs. Humble Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3,
Dated: _______
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on the ___ day of June, 2003 that all the contents of the above-titled written statement are true and correct to the best of knowledge
and
belief
of
the
respondents. Respondents
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, CAMP AT SAHIWAL.
Petition No. _______/2003 Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Nestle Milkpak (Ltd.) etc.
APPLICATION U/S 46 OF I.R.O. 2002. Reply to application U/s 5 of Limitation Act.
Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.
That the petitioner is failed to explain reason for the delay of each and every day in filing the petition as held by the Superior Courts of the country.
2.
That petitioner has given no cogent grounds to file the application for condonation of delay. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
3.
That ignorance of law cannot be made an excuse, the petitioner should have first served the grievance notice and then should have filed the grievance petition as per provision of law.
4.
That the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the present application as the earlier petition filed by the applicant was dismissed having not been pressed as is evident from the order of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer dated 26.3.2003.
5.
That delay caused by the petitioner is intentional and not an accidental one.
6.
That a valuable right is accrued to the respondents and same cannot be snatched straight away.
ON FACTS: 1.
Admitted.
2.
Not admitted correct. The fact remains that ignorance of law is no excuse at all. Detailed reply has been given in the preliminary objection No. 2.
3.
It is admitted to the extent that the petitioner filed a grievance petition on 26.10.02 without first serving the respondents with grievance notice and the petition was adjourned for four times and thereafter the petition was dismissed having not pressed. Therefore the present application is liable to be dismissed.
4.
It is submitted that grievance notice as well as grievance petition is not legal and valid in the eyes of law.
5.
Not admitted. Delay is intentional. Ignorance of law is not an excuse at all
6.
Not admitted. There is no chance of irreparable loss to be caused to the petitioner. Hence, the application in hand merits dismissal. Affidavit is wrong and false. Counter affidavit is attached. Prayer of the applicant/petitioner is wrong and defective. Same may be dismissed with costs. Humble Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3,
Dated: _______
Through: RIAZ-UL-HASSAN, Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, CAMP AT SAHIWAL.
Petition No. _______/2003 Sarfraz Hussain
Vs.
Nestle Milkpak (Ltd.) etc.
APPLICATION U/S 46 OF I.R.O. 2002. Reply to application U/s 5 of Limitation Act.
AFFIDAVIT of: Zaffar Iqbal, Milk Collection Coordinator, Nestle Milkpak (Pvt.) Ltd. Pakpattan Sharif. I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1.
That the above-titled reply to application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which may be considered as part and parcel of this affidavit.
2.
That all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief & nothing has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Lahore on the ____day of June 2003 that all the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; & nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Ph # 061-589175 Fax: 783026 Mob: 0303-6667566
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate, M.A. LL.B.
Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, 254-Fateh Sher Colony, Sahiwal.
Dear Sir, As discussed, I am enclosing followings: i)
Copy of application U/S-46 (i) I.R.O. 2002 along-with all the annexes.
ii)
Copy of reply to application, condonation of delay filed by respondents.
iii)
Photocopy of resignation. Regards. Yours sincerely,
Dated: 04.07.03 RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Advocate 6-A, Ahsan Colony, Suraj Miani Road, Multan.
