1991 PLP 772 (SCMR)
TRIBAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Malik NOWSHERWAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 772 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and |
| Parties | TRIBAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Malik NOWSHERWAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 772 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 772 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 772 (SCMR) (TRIBAL TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus Malik NOWSHERWAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi; Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th January, 1990.
- S.M. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi; Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-1-1989 of the Peshawar High Court D.I. Khan Bench W.P. No. 2 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)
Contentions were raised that judgment of High Court was based on non-reading and overlooking of material piece of evidence produced on record and that judgment of Supreme Court reported as 1975 SCMR 49 had not properly been construed by High Court
Contention having some force, leave to appeal was granted. South British Insurance Employees' Union v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others 1975 SCMR 49 ref:
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Ataullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi; Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th January, 1990. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The writ petition filed by the petitioner‑Mills was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the Labour Courts had found against the petitioner because neither the record of the office nor the audit reports were produced to enable it to examine the propriety or otherwise of the ground that the Mills were closed on account of the financial losses suffered by it. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that before the High Court it was pointed out that the balance‑sheets had been placed on the record (Exs.P.1 and P.4) which reflected the audited accounts of the petitioner Mills. It is, accordingly, contended that the judgment of the High Court is based on non‑reading and overlooking of material pieces of evidence. It is also submitted that the judgment of this Court entitled South British Insurance Employees' Union v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others (1975 S C M R 49) has not been properly construed by the High Court. There is some force in these submissions. Leave granted. Security in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents and put up for hearing at a very early date. H.B.T./T‑68/S Leave granted.