1977 PLP 69 (PLC)
S. H. I. GUL Versus SUI GAS TRANSMISSION Co. LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1977 PLP 69 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Memoon A. Kazi, Senior Member |
| Parties | S. H. I. GUL Versus SUI GAS TRANSMISSION Co. LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 69 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 69 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Memoon A. Kazi, Senior Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 69 (PLC) (S. H. I. GUL Versus SUI GAS TRANSMISSION Co. LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. L. Shahani for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Hassan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 6(2) Sc 7‑Scope‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority‑Enforcement of directions of Authority‑Not within its jurisdiction‑Magistrate first class only empowered to try offence of violation of directions of Authority.
Judgment & Decree
Case No. 18(3) of 1976, decided on 7th May 1976. ‑‑ Ss. 6(2) Sc 7‑Scope‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority‑Enforcement of directions of Authority‑Not within its jurisdiction‑Magistrate first class only empowered to try offence of violation of directions of Authority. M. L. Shahani for Petitioners. Ghulam Hassan for Respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied additional increment of Rs. 31, which is in violation of the terms of settlement dated 9th September 1974, gazetted in the official Gazette, dated 2nd May 1975. Earlier directions under section 6 of the Essential Services Act had been issued by the learned Chairman, in terms of the said settlement.
2. The respondents have taken up a preliminary objection that the Essential Services Act does not empower the Authority appointed under section 6 thereof to enforce the direction issued by it. Mr. Ghulam Hassan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that the power of the said Authority extends only to the extent of regulating the wages and other conditions of service of the employees and no further. According to him, in case any directions issued by the Authority under the said Act are violated there is no provision therein empowering the Authority to enforce them. Mr. Ghulam Hassan has referred to sub section (2) of section 6 which only lays down that violation of such direction is an offence, but only Magistrate First Class is empowered under section 7 to try such an offence. I fully agree with the contention raised by Mr. Ghulam Hassan and dismiss the petition, it being not maintainable. I