1989 PLP 1165 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PIONEER STEEL MILLS, MURIDKE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1165 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PIONEER STEEL MILLS, MURIDKE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1165 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1165 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1165 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PIONEER STEEL MILLS, MURIDKE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamarud Din Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court, dated 11‑1‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 97 of 1983) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Question of limitation was thoroughly examined both by Appellate Authority as well as the High Court and Supreme Court also examined it‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Yaqoob son of Ali Muhammad, resident of House No. 28, Street No. 6, Guru Mangat, Gulberg‑III, Lahore, was working in Pioneer Steel Mills, Muridke District Sheikhupura as Security Inspector. His services were terminated on 19/2(1‑9‑1978. He served a grievance notice to the employers. Thereafter he filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Punjab Labour Court No.
3. Petition was accepted. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with full benefits. On appeal by the employers to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, the decision of the Labour Court No. 3 was set aside. Muhammad Yaqoob then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. He was not successful there. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it was not without jurisdiction. An attempt was made by the learned counsel to convince us that the petitioner was not aware of the order of termination. The moment he came to know of it, he resorted to appropriate legal remedy. The question of limitation was thoroughly examined both by the appellate authority as well as the High Court. We have also looked into this. There is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence it is not a fit case for leave to appeal. M.B.A./M‑820/S Petition dismissed.