1999 PLP 400 (PLC)
Messrs PAK-ARAB REFINERY LTD. and 3 others Versus MUHAMMAD RASHEED and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP 400 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman |
| Parties | Messrs PAK-ARAB REFINERY LTD. and 3 others Versus MUHAMMAD RASHEED and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 400 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 400 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 400 (PLC) (Messrs PAK-ARAB REFINERY LTD. and 3 others Versus MUHAMMAD RASHEED and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Latif Saghar for Respondent No
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A (8) & 38(3-a)
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.2-A-- Grievance petition and appeal
Employer had contended that by virtue of S. 2-A inserted in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 grievance petition and then appeal filed by employee had stood abated
Grievance petition was entertained and decided by Labour Court long before insertion of S. 2-A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Labour Court at time of deciding grievance having jurisdiction; grievance petition, had not abated
Appeal 'filed after insertion of S.2-A in Service Tribunals Act, however, had stood abated. Muhammad Humayun for the Informants.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Humayun for the Informants. M. Latif Saghar for Respondent No This is a Revision Application No.KAR‑121 of 1998, under section 38(3‑a), I.R.O., 1969, filed by Pak‑Arab Refinery Limited against respondent Muhammad Rasheed.
2. Mr. Muhammad Humayun, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint under section 25‑A(8) of I.R.O., 1969 has been moved by the respondent, which is pending in the learned Labour Court No.5: In view of the fact that the appeal has abated by virtue of section 2‑a inserted on 10‑6‑1997 in the Service Tribunals Act. 1973, the proceedings in the said Labour Court also stand abated.
3. It appears that on 18‑8‑1993 an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 was filed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court, which was decided in his favour on 28‑8‑1995. At that time, there was no amendment in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and as such, the learned Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 and, in my view, the said case does not stand abated. It is only the appeal, which has come up before me today for hearing which has abated, as conceded by both the learned counsel.
4. However, it seems proper and expedient that some time be granted to the appellant, enabling him to take further legal steps to protect his right. Mr. Saghar for the respondent undertakes not to proceed with his complaint under section 25‑A (8) in the Labour Court for one month.
5. Mr. Humayun submits that one month's time may not be sufficient to obtain an order, staying the proceedings in the Labour Court as it would require service on the respondent, who is an individual. He, therefore, requests that at least two months' time may be granted to him. The request is reasonable to which Mr. Saghar agrees. The Labour Court will not, therefore; proceed with the matter for two months. The revision application is disposed of accordingly. Announced in open Court, this the 23rd day of February, 1999 H.B.T./317/Lab.(Trib) Order accordingly.