1997 PLP 416 (PLC)
Raja MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus IBRAHIM PATEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 416 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Raja MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus IBRAHIM PATEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 416 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 416 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 416 (PLC) (Raja MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus IBRAHIM PATEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1996
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Application for contempt of Court‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Order of reinstatement of employee/applicant with back benefits passed by Tribunal, was stayed by High Court in Constitutional petition and back benefits allowed to employee/applicant were ordered to be deposited in Court within specified period‑‑‑Employee/applicant had alleged that condition stated in stay order of High Court had been violated by respondents/employers and the stay stood vacated‑‑‑Application for contempt of Court filed by employee against employers was dismissed by Tribunal holding that applicant should approach High . Court for clarification. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 38(5)‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Application for contempt of Court‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Order of reinstatement of employee/applicant with back benefits passed by Tribunal, was stayed by High Court in Constitutional petition and back benefits allowed to employee/applicant were ordered to be deposited in Court within specified period‑‑‑Employee/applicant had alleged that condition stated in stay order of High Court had been violated by respondents/employers and the stay stood vacated‑‑‑Application for contempt of Court filed by employee against employers was dismissed by Tribunal holding that applicant should approach High . Court for clarification. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Applicant. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1996 The order of reinstatement with back benefits passed by this Tribunal was stayed by the High Court in Constitution petition, and the back benefits were ordered to be deposited with the Nagir of the High Court A within one month from 15‑2‑1994. The learned counsel states that .this condition has been violated by the respondent and the stay stand vacated, but for that he must approach the High Court for clarification.
2. The application for contempt is accordingly dismissed in limine .H.B.T./142/Lb.S Contempt application dismissed.