1991 PLP 913 (PLC(CS))
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION NO. 1, LARKANA and another Versus GHULAMULLAH and 3 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 913 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION NO. 1, LARKANA and another Versus GHULAMULLAH and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 913 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 913 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 913 (PLC(CS)) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION NO. 1, LARKANA and another Versus GHULAMULLAH and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Suo motu revision‑‑‑Services of workman were terminated by employer, but termination order admittedly was not served upon workman and he remained in service for more than one year after status quo order was confirmed by Trial Court in favour of workman‑‑‑Held, it would not be proper and correct to order removal of workman from service by setting aside interim order passed by Labour Court as it would amount to pro‑judging and pre‑juicing case of workman ‑‑‑No illegality having been found in order of Labour Court, revision was dismissed. Manzar Alam for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Manzar Alam for Applicants. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1991. This is suo motu Revision Application against the order of learned Presiding officer. Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur dated 24th March, 1990. The operative part of the order may be produced as under:-- "I have therefore come to the conclusion that the termination order dated 31-8-1989 having not been served on the applicant is of no consequence and the applicant is still in service of the respondent No.
1. Balance of convenience therefore lies in favour of the applicant. The status quo order earlier granted by my learned predecessor is therefore hereby confirmed. The application for contempt of Court under section 39, Rules 3 and 4 does not merit consideration as the order of termination is not subsequent to the interim order of status quo dated 8-11-1989. The application for contempt is therefore dismissed."
2. Mr. Manzar Alam contends that after the issuance of dismissal order the respondent could not have been deemed to be in service, therefore status quo order could not have been issued by the learned Labour Court. He however admits, that after the issuance of this order dated 24-3-1990, the respondent is in service. The learned Labour Court has come tentatively to the conclusion that termination order dated 31-8-1989 had not been served upon the respondent and was therefore of no consequence. The respondent who is present in this Tribunal also states, that termination order was not served upon him.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent has admittedly remained in service for more than one year, at least after the impugned order dated 24-3-1990 was passed. As such it would not be proper and correct, at this stage, to order his removal from service by setting aside the interim order passed by the learned Labour Court as it would amount to pre-judging and prejudicing the case of the respondent. I do not find any illegality in the order. I, therefore, dismiss the Revision Application with this direction that learned Labour Court should dispose of the case within three months. H.B.T./1922/Lb. S Revision dismissed.