1980 PLP 387 (SCMR)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 387 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 185 (3) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-Point urged by the petitioner, before Labour Appellate Tribunal and High Court, that of fact that a copy of inquiry Report etc. was not supplied to him at time of Inquiry-No question of law raised before Supreme Court.-Question of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAQIR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 387 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 387 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 185 (3) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-Point urged by the petitioner, before Labour Appellate Tribunal and High Court, that of fact that a copy of inquiry Report etc. was not supplied to him at time of Inquiry-No question of law raised before Supreme Court.-Question of fact. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 387 (SCMR) (FAQIR MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid M. Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing :16th January, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 1978 of the Sind High Court in Petition 774 of 1978). -- Art. 185 (3) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-Point urged by the petitioner, before Labour Appellate Tribunal and High Court, that of fact that a copy of inquiry Report etc. was not supplied to him at time of Inquiry-No question of law raised before Supreme Court.-[Question of fact].
Judgment & Decree
Hamid M. Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing :16th January, 1980. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Faqir Muhammad, petitioner, was employed as Helping Weaver in the Rashid Textile Mills Limited, Karachi. There was an allegation, against him of wilfully damaging certain property of the said Mills. He was, therefore, served with a charge sheet dated 24th October, 1975 and, after an inquiry, he was dismissed from the service. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court through an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance but the same was dismissed on 16th October 1976. He then filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but that was also dismissed in limine, vide Order dated 14th March 1977. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner challenged the Order of the Appellate Tribunal through Writ Petition (No. 774/1978) in the Sind High Court, but that too was dismissed vide impugned Order dated 23rd May, 1978 Hence the present petition.
2. On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 28th January, 1979 no one turned up when the case was called out for hearing and the petition was, therefore, dismissed for default. It has, however, now been restored and is being disposed of on merits.
3. We noticed that the only point urged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court was one of fact namely that copy of the Inquiry Report and other connected papers were not supplied to him at the time of inquiry. The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the assertion was not correct and that it was patently manifest from the record that copies of the said documents were duly supplied to the petitioner. The learned High Court Judges did not feel inclined to interfere with this findings of fact. Their Lordships also felt that the writ petition merited dismissal on the ground of laches, as it had been filed after mole than a year of passing of the impugned order. No question of law whatsoever has been raised before us. There is therefore, no ground for the grant of leave. The petition is, consequently, dismissed. Petition dismissed.