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: Rs. 30,000/-

ii) Professional fee including all expenses for

conducting suit before Civil Judge & M. Garh,

titled “Asim Khan Vs. Kot Addu Power Co.

& another”. Rs. 30,000/-

iii) 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. Rs. 26,250/-

iv) 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
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN Fax: 783026
Advocate, M.A. LL.B. Mob: 0303-6667566

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.