2005 PLP 79 (PLC)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 79 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Hakim Ali, J |
| Parties | MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, LAHORE and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 79 (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 2005 PLP 79 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Hakim Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 79 (PLC) (MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.22‑A(8)(g)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑‑Order whereby application filed under S.22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by respondent was entertained by National Industrial Relations Commission had been challenged by petitioner contending that Commission was not competent and same had been entertained without jurisdiction‑‑‑Constitutional petition was hanging for adjudication since 1996 without any commendable progress‑‑‑High Court' observed that purpose would be served if National Industrial Relations Commission was directed to consider the point of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case filed before it and render its decision with regards to its jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner had felt satisfied with such observations of the High Court and did not press his petition requesting that he would repeat it if need would arise in future‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No. 1794 of 1996/BWP decided on 30th September, 2003. ‑‑‑‑S.22‑A(8)(g)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Unfair labour practice‑‑‑Order whereby application filed under S.22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by respondent was entertained by National Industrial Relations Commission had been challenged by petitioner contending that Commission was not competent and same had been entertained without jurisdiction‑‑‑Constitutional petition was hanging for adjudication since 1996 without any commendable progress‑‑‑High Court' observed that purpose would be served if National Industrial Relations Commission was directed to consider the point of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case filed before it and render its decision with regards to its jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner had felt satisfied with such observations of the High Court and did not press his petition requesting that he would repeat it if need would arise in future‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for petitioner. The instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the impugned‑order dated 30‑11‑1995 passed by respondent No.2 by which he had entertained the petition filed by respondents Nos.3 to .11 under section 22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application before N.I.R.C. was not competent and was entertained without jurisdiction. This writ petition is hanging for adjudication since 1996 A without any commendable progress. In my opinion, the useful purpose would be served if the National Industrial Relations Commission is directed to consider the point of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case filed before it and render its decision with regards to its jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has felt satisfaction with this observation and, therefore, does not want to press this petition at present. He requests that he would repeat if need arises in future.
2. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑773/L Order accordingly.