1989 PLP 397 (PLC)
FAUJI FERTILIZER CO. Ltd. Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 397 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAUJI FERTILIZER CO. Ltd. Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 397 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 397 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 397 (PLC) (FAUJI FERTILIZER CO. Ltd. Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Termination of services‑‑Petition challenging order of Labour Court whereby employee's prayer for being given duty was rejected, when his grievance petition against termination of his services, was still pending before Labour Court‑‑Employee in an earlier grievance petition had prayed for a direction that he be made permanent when in the meantime his services were terminated and he prayed for his reinstatement in another grievance petition‑ Employee prayed that his first grievance petition should be decided before decision on his second grievance petition‑‑Said prayer of employee had not been disallowed by impugned order of Labour Court‑‑Employee, held, had no occasion to come in revision before Appellate Tribunal and there was no reason for exercising suo motu jurisdictional power by Appellate Tribunal. The revision captioned above challenges the order dated 26‑6‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at ‑ Ferozewala, whereby it has been observed that the petition of the respondent for being given duty cannot be accepted during the pendency of his application in which he has challenged the order of termination. It has been observed that the said petition would be decided alongwith the petition wherein the termination has been challenged. The case was ordered to come up for further proceedings on 6‑7‑1988 alongwith the connected case.
2. The facts are that in the previous grievance petition which is still pending the respondent had prayed for a direction that he be made permanent. In the meantime his services were terminated, therefore, he brought another application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his reinstatement. The case of the petitioner is that the earlier petition should be decided before the decision of the subsequent application in which the respondent has challenged the order of termination. Since such a prayer has not been disallowed to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 26‑6‑1988, the petitioner had no occasion to come in revision and there appears to be no reason for exercising suo motu revisional powers.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./546/Lb.P Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Termination of services‑‑Petition challenging order of Labour Court whereby employee's prayer for being given duty was rejected, when his grievance petition against termination of his services, was still pending before Labour Court‑‑Employee in an earlier grievance petition had prayed for a direction that he be made permanent when in the meantime his services were terminated and he prayed for his reinstatement in another grievance petition‑ Employee prayed that his first grievance petition should be decided before decision on his second grievance petition‑‑Said prayer of employee had not been disallowed by impugned order of Labour Court‑‑Employee, held, had no occasion to come in revision before Appellate Tribunal and there was no reason for exercising suo motu jurisdictional power by Appellate Tribunal. Muhammad Saleem Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988. The revision captioned above challenges the order dated 26‑6‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at ‑ Ferozewala, whereby it has been observed that the petition of the respondent for being given duty cannot be accepted during the pendency of his application in which he has challenged the order of termination. It has been observed that the said petition would be decided alongwith the petition wherein the termination has been challenged. The case was ordered to come up for further proceedings on 6‑7‑1988 alongwith the connected case.
2. The facts are that in the previous grievance petition which is still pending the respondent had prayed for a direction that he be made permanent. In the meantime his services were terminated, therefore, he brought another application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his reinstatement. The case of the petitioner is that the earlier petition should be decided before the decision of the subsequent application in which the respondent has challenged the order of termination. Since such a prayer has not been disallowed to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 26‑6‑1988, the petitioner had no occasion to come in revision and there appears to be no reason for exercising suo motu revisional powers.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./546/Lb.P Petition dismissed.