1994 PLP 624 (PLC)
S. JAMSHED RAZA Versus Syed NAIMUL HAQ
| Citation | 1994 PLP 624 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | S. JAMSHED RAZA Versus Syed NAIMUL HAQ |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 624 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 624 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 624 (PLC) (S. JAMSHED RAZA Versus Syed NAIMUL HAQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Wasti, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.38(3‑a)‑‑‑Complaint for breach of term of settlement arrived at between employer establishment and C.BA.‑‑‑Court issued process only against informant and that order of Court was challenged‑‑‑No evidence had been led to prove and it was nobody's case that term of settlement which was alleged to have been breached did not exist in settlement‑‑‑As to whether it was binding or not, could be considered only after parties had led evidence and as evidence was still to come, no occasion existed for interference at that stage‑‑‑Provisions of S. 38(3‑a) of the Ordinance, even otherwise, were not applicable to informant as a matter of right‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal was empowered to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of an order and nothing being discernible that way, petition under S. 38(3‑a) was liable to be dismissed. M.G. Dastagir and Zahid Hamid for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
M.G. Dastagir and Zahid Hamid for Applicant. Anwar Wasti, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1994. The respondent had filed a complaint before the Labour Court against three persons for breach of a term of the settlement arrived at between the Steel Mill and the C.BA. The Labour Court had issued process only against the informant and it is this order of issuing process which has been challenged here. .
2. No evidence has been led in the case and it is nobody's case that the clause which is alleged to have been breached did not exist in the settlement. As to whether it was binding or not binding still, could be considered only after the parties had led evidence. That is still to come.
3. Under the circumstances there is no occasion for interference at this stage. Otherwise too the provision of section 38(3‑a) are not applicable to the informant as a matter of right. It is power given to the Tribunal to satisfy itself as to the correctness, illegality or propriety of an order As nothing is discernible that way, I will, therefore, dismiss the application. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2308/Lb.S Application dismissed.