1985 PLP 759 (PLC)
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK PROGRESSIVE UNION Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS
| Citation | 1985 PLP 759 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aslam Mian, J |
| Parties | MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK PROGRESSIVE UNION Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 759 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 759 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Aslam Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 759 (PLC) (MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK PROGRESSIVE UNION Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. A. Khadim for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No. 1.
- Ata-ur-Rehman for Respondent No. 3.
- 3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 concedes that before petition dismissed in default is restored to its original number a notice according to legal norms is to be given to the other party, which was not done.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. Khadim for Petitioner. Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No.
1. Ata-ur-Rehman for Respondent No.
3. In this writ petition an order, dated 12th July, 1984 of respondent No. 4 restoring the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 dismissed in default on 10th July, 1984 has been challenged.
2. It has been maintained that while passing the order for restoration no notice of the application was given to the petitioner who is allegedly a Collective Bargaining Agent in the Muslim Commercial Bank Lahore.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 concedes that before petition dismissed in default is restored to its original number a notice according to legal norms is to be given to the other party, which was not done.
4. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the order passed on 12th July, 1984 restoring the petition of respondent No, 1 to its original number is quashed being without lawful authority and respondent No.4 is directed to re-hear the application for restoration after giving notice to the petitioner. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs. A. A. Petition accepted.