1998 PLP 344 (PLC)
SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. Versus N.I.R.C. and others
| Citation | 1998 PLP 344 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. Versus N.I.R.C. and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 344 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 344 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 344 (PLC) (SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. Versus N.I.R.C. and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saleem Baig for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Abid Saqi for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1997.
Judgment & Decree
S. 22-A(8)(g)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R. 9
Dismissal of petition under S. 22-A(8)(g), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, restoration of-- Restoration of petition without hearing the opposite-party
Validity-- Constitutional jurisdiction
Petition filed by respondents/ employees under S.22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance; 969 initially was dismissed in presence of petitioner/employer, but subsequently on application of respondents/employees was restored without notice to petitioner/employer-- Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, though were not strictly applicable, but rule of natural justice required that order of restoration ought to have been passed after hearing the other side, that having not been done, order of restoration of petition suffered from grave illegality
Such order was declared illegal by High Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction and case was remanded to be decided on. merit after notice to the other side. Saleem Baig for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to
3. Abid Saqi for Respondents Nos. 4 to
7. Date of hearing: 15th May, 1997. Petition brought by respondents Nos. 4 to 7 under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, vide order dated 26-11-1995 was dismissed in default in the presence of the petitioner, who was the respondent in the application under section 22-A(8)(g). Subsequently, on an application moved by respondents Nos. 4 to 7 the petition was restored without notice to the petitioner. Under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. notice to the opposite-party before the restoration in such circumstances is obligatory. Even if the provisions of C.P.C. are not strictly applicable, the rule of natural justice requires that an order of restoration ought to have been passed after hearing the other side. This having not been done, the impugned order of restoration suffers from grave illegality.
2. It is hereby declared that impugned order is passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the application for restoration under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. shall be deemed to be pending and will now be disposed of in accordance with law after hearing the parties. No order as to costs. H.B.T./S-201/L Petition allowed.