1989 PLP 806 (SCMR)
KHURSHID AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus LABOUR COURT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 806 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | KHURSHID AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus LABOUR COURT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 806 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 806 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 806 (SCMR) (KHURSHID AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus LABOUR COURT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Tariq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1988.
- Mian Tariq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Coort, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 30-9-87 (29-9-87) in W.P. Nos.363 & 364 of 1987).
Art.185(3)--Employees dismissed on charge of misappropriation of employer's property--Dismissal order challenged before Labour Court and Labour Appellate Court, but without any success--Employees' Constitutional petition against their dismissal also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction--High Court's order, impugned on the ground that there were decisions of Supreme Court in favour of petitioners regarding question of jurisdiction but there was difference of opinion, and therefore, such matter calls for authoritative pronouncement by Supreme Court- Substantial question of law of public importance being involved in petitions, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Khurshid Ahmad and Khuda Bakhsh have filed two separate petitions for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The former was working as Clerk in Attock Refinery and the latter as Pump‑man. Both were dismissed from service having been found to be guilty of misappropriation of the company's property. They challenged their dismissal before the Labour Court but did not succeed. Their appeal also failed. Then they resorted to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. Their petitions were dismissed in limine on 29‑9‑1987 because the counsel for the petitioners failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing. The Judge declined the request of the petitioners for adjournment and after discussing the case‑law dismissed the petitions in limine. Thereafter the petitioners filed application under section 151 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and section 114, C.P.C. requesting for re‑hearing of the petitions so that the counsel could argue. This request was declined on 14‑10‑
87. Learned counsel argued, inter alia, that the cases referred to in the impugned order by the learned Judge are distinguishable. On the other hand there are decisions of this Court in favour of the petitioners regarding the question of jurisdiction but there is a difference of opinion. Learned counsel submitted hence the matter calls for authoritative pronouncement by this Court. Substantial question of law of public importance is involved in these petitions. Leave is accordingly granted in both the petitions. Security Rs.2,500 each. Appeals to be made ready on the present record. The parties if they so wish may file additional documents within two months. A.A./K‑93/S Leave granted.