1989 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))
RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM
| Citation | 1989 PLP 683 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 683 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 683 (PLC(CS)) (RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 17th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Several objections preliminary as well as on facts raised in written statement but not answered by the Labour Court‑ Opportunity of leading evidence not afforded to parties‑‑Decision of Labour Court accepting petition, held, not maintainable and was set aside in appeal‑ Case remanded for redecision on all controversial points after affording opportunity of evidence to parties. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Several objections preliminary as well as on facts raised in written statement but not answered by the Labour Court‑ Opportunity of leading evidence not afforded to parties‑‑Decision of Labour Court accepting petition, held, not maintainable and was set aside in appeal‑ Case remanded for redecision on all controversial points after affording opportunity of evidence to parties. Agha Taj Muhammad for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 17th December, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 5‑10‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court Rawalpindi, whereby the respondent was allowed to retire with all consequential benefits.
2. The respondent is a driver and being an office‑bearer of a union conducts labour cases of the workers against the Railways. For this reason he was charge‑sheeted, whereupon he applied for his retirement. The appellant did not retire him and proceeded against him for misconduct, which actuated the respondent to knock the door of the Court.
3. Several objections preliminary as well as on facts were raised in the written statement but the learned lower Court has not answered them. No 1 opportunity was given to any of the parties to produce evidence. For the reasons given above, the impugned order is not maintainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision the controversial points after allowing opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence. A.E./616/Lb.P Case remanded.