1988 PLP 662 (PLC(CS))
ZIAUL HAQ and 2 others Versus PRESIDENT MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. and 3 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 662 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZIAUL HAQ and 2 others Versus PRESIDENT MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 662 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 662 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 662 (PLC(CS)) (ZIAUL HAQ and 2 others Versus PRESIDENT MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellants.
- Mian Nisar Saleem for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
19135 P L C 1053 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Since the three appeals captioned above involve similar question they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The grievance petitions have been directed to be returned to the appellant vide order dated 4‑1‑1987 for presentation to the proper forum holding that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has relied upon 1985 P L C 1053 wherein it has been held by the Lahore High Court that the persons who have been removed from service cease to remain covered by the definition of 'workman' in cases where Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable and thus, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. Since every order passed by Labour Courts and this Tribunal is subject to grit jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, therefore, the learned lower Court has rightly relied upon the ruling mentioned above. But since the said ruling has not gained finality as it stands challenged before the) Supreme Court, there was no justification in passing an unconditional order of the return of grievance petition. The appellant would remain without any remedy if the Supreme Court sets aside the ruling cited above.
3. As a result the appeals are partly accepted and maintaining the order of return of grievance petition it is directed that if the Supreme Court holds that the persons who are not in service on the date on which they bring grievance petitions are covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the appellants would be entitled to get their grievance petitions decided on merits by the learned lower Court. M. Y. H. /335/Lb.P Appeals partly accepted.