1996 PLP 181 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT,
| Citation | 1996 PLP 181 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 181 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 181 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 181 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 38(3-a)
Revision application could not' be entertained unless order sought to be revised was legally incorrect or was improper. Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Court, Karachi 1973 PLC 111 ref. MA Hassan Malik for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Revision application‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Revision application could not' be entertained unless order sought to be revised was legally incorrect or was improper. Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Court, Karachi 1973 PLC 111 ref. MA Hassan Malik for Applicant. Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1995. This Revision Application arises from an interlocutory order of Labour Court No. 5.. In the course of a petition under section 25‑A against reversion, an application was made in the Labour Court purporting to be under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of ad interim Injunction against the reversion of the petitioner pending the final decision. The learned Labour Court found that the application for ad interim injunction did not lie under the I.R.O. and he dismissed the same. Against this dismissal the applicant has filed this Revision Application under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O.
2. The Revision Application cannot be entertained unless an impugned order is legally incorrect or is improper. In this case there is no occasion for application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for restraining the employer from reverting the employee/applicant pending the case under section 25‑A, I.R.O. before the Labour Court. It has been held by High Court, Karachi in Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Court, Karachi reported in 1973 PLC 111 that Labour Court has no authority to pass an order in the nature of interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. Under the circumstances the. application for ad interim Injunction not being maintainable was dismissed by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show how the said order was illegal or improper and how the Revision Application would lie under section 38 of the I.R.O.
3. This Revision Application is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2517/Lb.S Revision dismissed.