1984 PLP 447 (SCMR)
SAJJANI ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS-Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 447 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ------S.25-A(6) as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973-Termination of service-Notice under S. 25-A before instituting proceedings in Labour Court against order of termination of service not necessary-Aggrieved worker could seek his remedy against termination of his employment directly from Junior Labour Court. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAJJANI ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS-Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 447 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 447 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ------S.25-A(6) as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973-Termination of service-Notice under S. 25-A before instituting proceedings in Labour Court against order of termination of service not necessary-Aggrieved worker could seek his remedy against termination of his employment directly from Junior Labour Court. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 447 (SCMR) (SAJJANI ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS-Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riaz Ahmad Peerzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (in C. As. Nos. 183, 184 of 1979) for Respondent No. 1.
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C. A. No. K-83 of 1980).
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C. A. No. K-83 of 1980).
- Date of hearing : 5th December, 1983.
- Syed Riaz Ahmad Peerzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (in C. As. Nos. 183, 184 of 1979) for Respondent No. 1.
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in C. A. No. K‑83 of 1980).
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C. A. No. K‑83 of 1980).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order dated 17th February, 1979 of High Court of Sind, Karachi, passed in Constitution Petitions NOS. 220, 222 and 217 of 1976),
S.25-A(6) [as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973]-Termination of service-Notice under S. 25-A before instituting proceedings in Labour Court against order of termination of service not necessary-Aggrieved worker could seek his remedy against termination of his employment directly from Junior Labour Court. Iftikhar Elahi v. Butt Engineering Industries 1982 S C M R 1207 ref. Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 : Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.‑--In these three appeals the common question for consideration is as to whether notice impugning the termination of service is mandatory under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 before instituting proceedings in a Labour Court for setting it aside. Factually in none of these cases such as notice was given. The High Court relying on the case of Nasim Silk Industries v. Fifth Sind Labour Court and others (P L D 1977 Kar. 793), held that it was necessary and gave the relief. But it seems that the High Court failed to notice that after the judgment in this case subsection (6) was inserted in section 25‑A on 9th of February, 1973, by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, which did away with the requirement of notice. This subsection was construed by this Court and it was held that the aggrieved worker could seek his remedy against the termination of his employment directly from the Junior Labour Court. Reference in this connection may be made to Iftikhar Elahi v. Butt Engineering Industries (1982 S C M R 1207). Accordingly, these appeals succeed and are allowed, but with no order as to costs. M. Z. M. Appeal accepted.