1995 PLP 324 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 3 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP 324 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Waheed, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 324 (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 1995 PLP 324 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Waheed, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 324 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner.
- Ali Hussain Khan for Respondent No. 2.
- Nemo for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 37 & 38(3‑A)‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employer instead of filing appeal against decision of Labour Court within prescribed period of 30 days before Appellate Tribunal as provided under S. 37 of the Ordinance, filed revision after about 7 months from decision of Labour Court contending that since remedy of appeal had become barred by time by efflux of time, he was constrained to file revision petition‑‑‑Employer had not alleged that decision of Labour Court suffered from lack of jurisdiction or any procedural defect‑‑ Only reason which had been advanced for maintainability of revision was that appeal which was alternative remedy had become barred by time‑‑‑Said reason was insufficient to justify maintainability of revision petition as same would tantamount to giving employer/petitioner premium for his own default. Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 and Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Khan Bahadur and others 1992 SCMR 2334 ref. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative of Respondent No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, Representative of Respondent No.
1. Ali Hussain Khan for Respondent No.
2. Nemo for respondents Nos. 3 and
4. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1995. The petitioner, in this revision petition, assails the validity of a decision passed by the Punjab Labour Court No:5, Sargodha on 2nd of August, 1992, whereby the grievance petition filed by Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.1 was accepted and he was declared as having been promoted as Guard Grade‑1 with effect from 23rd of June, 1988. He was also allowed back benefits as Guard Grade‑1 from the said date.
2. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the impugned decision on 2nd of August, 1992. The copy was delivered to him on 22nd of August, 1992. However, instead of filing an appeal within thirty days as provided by section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he filed the revision petition on 20th of March, 1993. He explained that since the remedy of the appeal had become barred by time by efflux of time, he was constrained to file the revision petition.
3. On behalf of respondent No.1 an objection has been raised that the revision petition is incompetent. This objection is not invalid as an appeal lies from the impugned decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that this revision petition is maintainable, has relied on Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another (PLD 1975 SC 678) and Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Khan Bahadur and others (1992 SCMR 2334). It has been observed in PLD 1975 SC 678 that although ordinarily,, Courts have declined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction where an alternative remedy is available, yet this is not an 'inflexible rule to be rigidly followed and a departure could be justifiably made if required by the circumstances of the case. It is not alleged that the impugned decision suffers from lack of jurisdiction or any procedural defect. The only reason which has been advanced for the maintainability of this revision petition is that the appeal which was the alternative remedy, had become barred by time. This reason is insufficient to justify the maintainability of the revision petition. This would be tantamount to giving the petitioner premium for his own default.
4. In the circumstances, this revision petition, being incompetent, is dismissed. H.B.T./2407/Lb.P Revision dismissed.