1991 PLP 718 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN PVC LTD. Versus NOOR KHAN and others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 718 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN PVC LTD. Versus NOOR KHAN and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 718 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 718 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 718 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN PVC LTD. Versus NOOR KHAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 38(3‑A) & 50‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Revision lies to Labour Appellate Tribunal against order of Labour Court passed in appeal against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act but that would not give power to Tribunal to revise order of Authority directly without parties first having recourse to Labour Court in appeal. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑5. 50‑‑‑Settlement between C.B.A. and Management ‑‑‑Interpretation‑‑ Labour Appellate Tribunal would assume jurisdiction under S.50, Industrial Relations Ordinance and would interpret provision of settlement if there existed any difficulty or doubt as to interpretation of settlement only when such reference was made to Tribunal‑‑‑If there was no reference, Tribunal would not be able to hold whether there was any difficulty or doubt with regard to interpretation of any provision of settlement nor Tribunal could interpret any provision of settlement in revision application. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Representative for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑5. 50‑‑‑Settlement between C.B.A. and Management ‑‑‑Interpretation‑‑ Labour Appellate Tribunal would assume jurisdiction under S.50, Industrial Relations Ordinance and would interpret provision of settlement if there existed any difficulty or doubt as to interpretation of settlement only when such reference was made to Tribunal‑‑‑If there was no reference, Tribunal would not be able to hold whether there was any difficulty or doubt with regard to interpretation of any provision of settlement nor Tribunal could interpret any provision of settlement in revision application. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Representative for Applicants. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1990. I have heard Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani for the applicants.
2. This Revision application is directed against the order of learned Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 13‑9‑1989 and against order of learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad dated 12‑8‑1990. The Revision against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, dated 13‑9‑1989, suffers from limitation/laches as this Revision Application has been filed after 11 months of the passing of the impugned order and after the party had appeared and pleaded before Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in pursuance of the order in Appeal passed by the learned Labour Court on 13‑9‑1989.
3. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani is not able to point out any provision of law under which this Tribunal has power to revise the order passed by Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Under the law only appeal before Labour Court is provided against Final Order that may be passed by the Authority. However, it is settled law; that Revision would lie to this Tribunal against order of learned Labour Court passed in appeal against order of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. However that does not give power to this Tribunal to revise the order of the Authority directly without parties having recourse to Labour Court in appeal.
4. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani further submitted that question at issue before Labour Court is interpretation of a settlement between the C.B.A. and Management which is exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 50 of I.R.O. This Tribunal would assume jurisdiction under section 50 and would interpret provision of the settlement, if there is any difficulty or doubt as to the interpretation of the settlement only when such reference is made to this Tribunal. There is no such reference as yet and therefore this Tribunal is not able to say whether there is any difficulty or doubt with regard to interpretation of any provision of settlement nor can it interpret any provision of the settlement in this Revision Application.
5. The Revision Application is dismissed. M.Y.H./1746/Lb. S Petition dismissed.