1984 PLP (1) (PLC(CS))
GENERAL, MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KHANPUR Versus DIN MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP (1) (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | GENERAL, MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KHANPUR Versus DIN MUHAMMAD |
| Primary Law | (a) Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (1) (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (1) (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (1) (PLC(CS)) (GENERAL, MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KHANPUR Versus DIN MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manhajal Beg for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 19th April, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Adjournment‑Held, not a right to be claimed by a party or counsel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑ S. 38‑Review by Appellate Tribunal‑Provision of review, held, available in Ordinance. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Adjournment‑Held, not a right to be claimed by a party or counsel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑ S. 38‑Review by Appellate Tribunal‑Provision of review, held, available in Ordinance. Manhajal Beg for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 19th April, 1982. This is a review petition against the decision passed by my learned predecessor, dated 15th October, 1980 whereby the appeal brought by the petitioner was dismissed. The said appeal was brought under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The grounds for review are that the original counsel for the petitioner had gone out of Lahore and his junior made request for adjournment which was rejected. Adjournment is not a right Which may be claimed by any party or counsel for the party. The other thing is that there is no provision of .review in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Therefore, if the order deciding the appeal is interfered with the order will be without jurisdiction. I, therefore, file the review petition. M. Y. M. Review petition failed.