2004 PLP 213 (PLC)
RIAZ AHMED MALIK Versus ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BAHAWALPUR and another
| Citation | 2004 PLP 213 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | RIAZ AHMED MALIK Versus ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BAHAWALPUR and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 213 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 213 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 213 (PLC) (RIAZ AHMED MALIK Versus ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BAHAWALPUR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 9‑2‑2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 136 of 1998/BWP). Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Reinstatement in service‑‑‑Back benefits, entitlement to‑‑‑Pre‑conditions‑‑‑Factual controversy‑‑ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑Petitioner was reinstated in service by National Industrial Relations Commission without back benefits‑‑‑Petitioner sought recovery of the benefits through Constitutional petition but High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑High Court while dismissing the petition had rightly observed that the petitioner had not placed any material on record to establish his assertion that he remained un‑employed and jobless till his re‑instatement by the National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner involved factual controversy and the same could not be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the judgment passed by High Court‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 9‑2‑2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissed the Constitution Petition, filed by the petitioner claiming back benefits.
2. We need not give the facts of the case' as the same have been given in detail in the impugned judgment.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner, who has appeared in .person in support of the petition, and have gone through the documents placed on record. We have noticed that the Senior Member, N.I.R.C., through his order, dated 22‑12‑1997 accepted the petition filed by the petitioner and re‑instated him without back benefits. The petitioner instead of challenging order of the Senior Member N.I.R.C. before the Full Bench, filed Constitutional Petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 9‑2‑2000.
4. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, while dismissing the Constitutional petition has observed that the petitioner has not placed any material on record to establish his assertion that he remained un‑employed and jobless till his re‑instatement by the, N.I.R.C. on 22‑12‑1997. Even otherwise, the plea raised by the petitioner involving; factual controversy cannot be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./R‑10/S Petition dismissed.