1994 PLP 21 (PLC)
THE PERSONNEL MANAGER Versus MUZAFFAR ALI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 21 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, J |
| Parties | THE PERSONNEL MANAGER Versus MUZAFFAR ALI |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 21 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 21 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 21 (PLC) (THE PERSONNEL MANAGER Versus MUZAFFAR ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Bokhari for Petitioner.
- 3. Mr. Asghar Mahmood, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Notice need not be sent to him.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑ Employers who had challenged maintainability of grievance petition of employee in Constitutional petition on ground that employee was not a "workman" within meaning of Labour Laws, had also filed appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Employers contended that Tribunal being empowered to suspend operation of impugned order only for 20 days, appeal filed by employers could not be said to be an adequate remedy in circumstances of the case and further that in similar circumstances, when appeals were pending before Tribunal, Constitutional petitions on ground of inefficacy of appeals were entertained in High Court and were also finally disposed of‑‑‑Question raised by employers needing consideration, Constitutional petition was admitted for hearing.
Judgment & Decree
M.S. Bokhari for Petitioner. Learned counsel contends that respondent Muzaffar Ali was a Foreman in Bata (Pakistan) Ltd. It is in evidence before the Labour Court that he used to grant leave and issue show‑cause notices and charge‑sheets to the employees under him. It is, therefore, argued that the said respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Labour Laws and, as such, his grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was not maintainable.
2. As regards the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that the Labour Tribunal is empowered to suspend the operation of the impugned order only for 20 days, appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel further points out that in similar circumstances when appeals were pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Constitutional petitions on the ground of inefficacy of the appeals were entertained in this Court and were also finally disposed of. He has particularly referred to W.Ps. Nos. 3754/77 and 1578/76. Question raised needs consideration. Admit. Notice.
3. Mr. Asghar Mahmood, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.
1. Notice need not be sent to him.
4. Operation of the impugned order is suspended.
5. As the service is complete and a short question is involved in this petition, it be set down for hearing before the commencement of long summer vacations, 1985. H.B.T./P‑75/L Petition admitted