1987 PLP 460(1) (PLC)
SUBHAN KHAN Versus LABOUR COURT NO. I and others
| Citation | 1987 PLP 460(1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi. J |
| Parties | SUBHAN KHAN Versus LABOUR COURT NO. I and others |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 460(1) (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 460(1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 460(1) (PLC) (SUBHAN KHAN Versus LABOUR COURT NO. I and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Majeed Jeelani for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss.15 & 17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not go into appreciation of evidence which had already been appreciated by forums below.
Judgment & Decree
Constitutional Petition No.S‑52 of 1986, decided on 20th May, 1986. ‑‑Ss.15 & 17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, held, could not go into appreciation of evidence which had already been appreciated by forums below. Muhammad Majeed Jeelani for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1986. The only point urged by Mr. Muhammad Majeed Jeelani is that the evidence produced in the case has not been properly assessed either by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act or the Labour Court which acted as Appellate Authority under the said Act.
2. The contention raised seems to be completely misconceived as in the exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this Court cannot go into appreciation of evidence as the same has already been appreciated by two forums below. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition and it is hereby dismissed in limine. M. Y. H / S‑3 / K Petition dismissed.