1992 PLP 525 (PLC)
CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA, HYDERABAD and 2 others Versus ABDUL RAZZAK
| Citation | 1992 PLP 525 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA, HYDERABAD and 2 others Versus ABDUL RAZZAK |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 525 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 525 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 525 (PLC) (CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA, HYDERABAD and 2 others Versus ABDUL RAZZAK). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Pervez for Appellants.
- Manzar Alam for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Assistant Lineman, who was removed from service, admittedly being employee of WAPDA, could seek remedy only from Service Tribunal as Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with matter. Water and Power Development Authority v. Javed Ahmed 1989 SCMR 1068 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Zia Pervez for Appellants. Manzar Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1992. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Lineman on 11-3-1990 and was removed from service by letter dated 31-7-1990. Aggrieved by this order he had moved the Labour Court after serving the preliminary grievance notice.
2. The appellants never bothered to enter appearance and the order was passed ex parte. It was found that as Assistant Lineman he was a workman and his removal from service without assigning any reason was unwarranted in law.
3. An appeal has been preferred and the contention raised by Mr. Zia Pervez is that the proceedings before the Labour Court did not lie at all as the respondent being an employee of WAPDA could seek remedies only from the Service Tribunal. Reference was made to a decision of Supreme Court namely Water and Power Development Authority v. Javed Ahmed reported in 1989 SCMR page 1068.
4. That clinches the issue. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. I will, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. H.B.T./2020/Lb.S Appeal allowed.