1996 PLP 157 (PLC)
RIAZ-UD-DIN Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP 157 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | RIAZ-UD-DIN Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 157 (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 157 (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 157 (PLC) (RIAZ-UD-DIN Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 38(3-a)---Acquittal by Labour Court---Validity---Labour Court acquitted accused/respondent holding that no proof was available regarding allegation that respondent had refused to comply with orders of Court as alleged by petitioner---No ground had been mentioned in Revision Application by petitioner regarding legality and propriety of judgment of Labour Court, even counsel for petitioner had remained absent for the last several hearings and avoided to appear in the matter---Order of Labour Court thus could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal.
- M. Latif Saghar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th September, 1995.
- ‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Acquittal by Labour Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Labour Court acquitted accused/respondent holding that no proof was available regarding allegation that respondent had refused to comply with orders of Court as alleged by petitioner‑‑‑No ground had been mentioned in Revision Application by petitioner regarding legality and propriety of judgment of Labour Court, even counsel for petitioner had remained absent for the last several hearings and avoided to appear in the matter‑‑‑Order of Labour Court thus could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal.
- This is Revision Application against the order of acquittal of the Labour Court, in case of a complaint for non‑compliance of the Court's orders. It was held by the Labour 'Court that there was no proof regarding the allegation that the respondent had refused to comply with the order of the Court. No grounds have even been mentioned in the Revision Application regarding the legality and propriety of the judgment of the Labour Court. The learned Advocate for the applicant has remained absent for the last several hearings and is avoiding to appear in this matter.
Headnotes / Summary
Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Acquittal by Labour Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Labour Court acquitted accused/respondent holding that no proof was available regarding allegation that respondent had refused to comply with orders of Court as alleged by petitioner‑‑‑No ground had been mentioned in Revision Application by petitioner regarding legality and propriety of judgment of Labour Court, even counsel for petitioner had remained absent for the last several hearings and avoided to appear in the matter‑‑‑Order of Labour Court thus could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal. Appellant in person. M. Latif Saghar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th September, 1995. This is Revision Application against the order of acquittal of the Labour Court, in case of a complaint for non‑compliance of the Court's orders. It was held by the Labour 'Court that there was no proof regarding the allegation that the respondent had refused to comply with the order of the Court. No grounds have even been mentioned in the Revision Application regarding the legality and propriety of the judgment of the Labour Court. The learned Advocate for the applicant has remained absent for the last several hearings and is avoiding to appear in this matter.
2. Mr. M. Latif Saghar has argued that there is no illegality apparent on the face of the record and the order of acquittal by the lower Court is on merits.
3. Under the circumstances there appears no ground for interference with the order of the Labour Court and the Revision Application is dismissed. H.B.T./2506/Lb.S Revision application dismissed.