1976 PLP 453(1) (PLC)
DIAMOND SILK MILLS LTD. Versus WORKERS' UNION
| Citation | 1976 PLP 453(1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIAMOND SILK MILLS LTD. Versus WORKERS' UNION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 453(1) (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 453(1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 453(1) (PLC) (DIAMOND SILK MILLS LTD. Versus WORKERS' UNION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Mirza for Appellant (in Appeal No. KAR-818 of 1,973).
- Nemo for Respondent.
- M. Sharif Khattak for Appellant (in Appeal No. KAR-854 of 1973).
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) .._- Ss. 34 & 37-Appeal-Order of Labour Court under S. 34-Not an award, hence not appealable. Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Pak. Paper Products Limited, Writ Petition No. 599 of 1973 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) .._- Ss. 34 & 37-Appeal-Order of Labour Court under S. 34-Not an award, hence not appealable. Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Pak. Paper Products Limited, Writ Petition No. 599 of 1973 ref. Masood Mirza for Appellant (in Appeal No. KAR-818 of 1,973). Nemo for Respondent. M. Sharif Khattak for Appellant (in Appeal No. KAR-854 of 1973). Nemo for Respondents. I propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common order, in view of the decision of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in Writ Petition No. 599 of 1973. Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Pak. Paper Products Limited, in which it has been held that an order under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), is not an award and, therefore, no appeal lies. Both these appeals are against order under section 34 of the Ordinance. I, therefore, dismiss them as no appeal lies.