1971 PLP 111 (PLC)
WALI AHMAD Versus MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD., CHITAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 111 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members |
| Parties | WALI AHMAD Versus MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD., CHITAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 111 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 111 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 111 (PLC) (WALI AHMAD Versus MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD., CHITAGONG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑Review Judgment of Labour Court assailed on ground that Court should have given termination benefits and its decision regarding dismissal was erroneous ‑ Court, however, found to have reached its conclusion on materials before it‑No dis covery of important matter or evidence nor any error or mistake apparent. on face of record pointed out‑Review application, in circumstances, held, misconceived and hence rejected-Civil Proce dure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1.
Judgment & Decree
Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1970, decided on. 10th July 1970. Industrial dispute‑‑Review Judgment of Labour Court assailed on ground that Court should have given termination benefits and its decision regarding dismissal was erroneous ‑ Court, however, found to have reached its conclusion on materials before it‑No dis covery of important matter or evidence nor any error or mistake apparent. on face of record pointed out‑Review application, in circumstances, held, misconceived and hence rejected-Civil Proce dure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r.
1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). This misc, case arises out of an application, tinder Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C. P. C. for review of a contested judgment of this Court. Opposite‑party opposes the application. On a perusal of review application, it appears that the judgment of the Court has been assailed on several grounds. It is said that the Court should have `given termination benefits, Court, however, held on materials before it that this is not a case of termination simpliciter, but dismissal in effect. It is ass sought to be said that dismissal, if any wag not proper and Court' findings to that effect is erroneous. It is also said that the Court travelled beyond the scope of the case. Be that as it may these are no grounds for, review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C. P. C. Review is entertained on two well‑defined settled grounds, discovery of important matter or evidence, or any error or mistake apparent on the face of this record. I have scanned the judgment and the review petition and I say that there is no material for review of the judgment. The application is quite misconceived. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any findings of the judgment, his remedy is elsewhere. The learned members also agree with me. So That the misc. case be dismissed on contest. Considering circumstances I direct Ithe parties to bear their respective cost of the case.