1988 PLP 697 (PLC(CS))
CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus MANZOOR ALI
| Citation | 1988 PLP 697 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus MANZOOR ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 697 (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 1988 PLP 697 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Chafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 697 (PLC(CS)) (CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus MANZOOR ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Awais for Appellant.
- Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 36‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S35‑A Imposition of costs‑‑Powers of Labour Court‑‑Imposition of special costs, held was not within jurisdiction of Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 36‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S35‑A Imposition of costs‑‑Powers of Labour Court‑‑Imposition of special costs, held was not within jurisdiction of Labour Court. Ahmed Awais for Appellant. Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Respondent Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988 The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 11‑10‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1 Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the respondent with regard to the medical charges has been allowed. The appellant has been burdened with special costs of Rs.1,000 also. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal so far as the medical charges are concerned but has attacked the order of the learned Lower Court to the extent it imposes special costs. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the learned Labour Court has to pass just and proper orders after considering all the facts of the case the learned Lower Court has rightly imposed the special costs of Rs.1,
000. He also argues that since the, appellant did not allow medical charges soon after the respondent had claimed, therefore, the appellant has been rightly burdened with special costs. Since there is no provision of special costs in I.R. O. 1969 the order is not proper to this extent. In Civil Procedure Code there is a section 'l35‑A which authorises the civil Courts to impose special costs but since there is no such section in I.R.O. 1969 the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction in this respect.
2. As a result the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the, impugned decision the direction of payment of special costs of Rs.1,000 is set aside. A.E. /509/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.