1990 PLC157 (PLP)
NAZAR ALI KHAN and others Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others
| Citation | 1990 PLC157 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahntood J |
| Parties | NAZAR ALI KHAN and others Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLC157 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLC157 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahntood J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLC157 (PLP) (NAZAR ALI KHAN and others Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑S. 31 (3‑A)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where application of petitioner for impleading him as party in case was dismissed by Labour Court, proper course for petitioner, held, was to approach Labour Appellate Tribunal to exercise its revisional powers to look into propriety of order of Labour Court‑‑Invoking of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court against order of Labour Court before invoking revisional jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal, would be premature.
- Hafiz Muhammad Saeed for Petitioners.
- Ch. Fazl‑i‑Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Respondent No. 3.
Judgment & Decree
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed for Petitioners. Ch. Fazl‑i‑Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Asad Ullah Siddiqui for Respondent No.
3. This writ petition is directed against many‑fold grievance of the petitioners. I need not dilate upon 'them or decide them prematurely in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case.
2. The facts necessary are that the matter was pending under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before Punjab Labour Court No. 2, at Lahore, at the instance of the rival group of the petitioners. The petitioners gave an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as party to this application. Before the application could be decided, they approached the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in revision.. Some have wisdom dawned upon the petitioners and they decided to withdraw the revision petition. Learned counsel gave statement before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on instructions, that the application of the petitioners for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Labour Court was pending in" the lower Court and the petitioner would like to await its result. The Labour Appellate. Tribunal accordingly as per statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners, disposed it of as withdrawn.
3. It is admitted before me that subsequently the Labour Court dismissed the application of the petitioners for being impleaded as party. The proper course for the petitioners was to approach the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 31(3‑a) in its revisional power to look into the propriety of the order passed by the Punjab Labour Court. The only impediment which earlier stood in their way now stands removed. In the earlier case, no order had been passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Invoking of the writ jurisdiction by the petitioners at this stage is also premature against that order of Labour Court. After the Labour Appellate Tribunal has made an adjudication and passed an order adverse to the petitioners, it is open for the petitioners to approach this Court making out a case for exercise of writ jurisdiction, if they can. This writ petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./N‑290/L Order accordingly.