1990 PLP 1030 (SCMR)
SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No.3, LAHORE AT FEROZEWALA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1030 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No.3, LAHORE AT FEROZEWALA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1030 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1030 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1030 (SCMR) (SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and 2 others — Petitioners. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No.3, LAHORE AT FEROZEWALA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-5-1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 5149 of 1980).
Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions of law, namely, whether (1) `Overseer' fell in category of `workman' or `civil servant'; (2) whether an employee had to be kept in Government employment even after conviction and sentence under S.409, P.P.C. and even after conviction and sentence under S.409, P.P.C. and whether delay had been appropriately explained to avoid application of laches.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal is granted to examine the following questions of law:-- (1) Whether `Overseer' fell in the category of `Workman' or `Civil Servant'? (2) Whether an employee had to be kept in Government employment even after conviction and sentence under section 409, P.P.C.? (3) Whether delay has been appropriately explained to avoid the application of laches? To be heard at an early date on the present record with liberty to parties to file additional documents. H.B.T./S-469/5 Leave granted.