1996 PLP 227 (PLC)
ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUI Versus Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY,
| Citation | 1996 PLP 227 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUI Versus Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY, |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 227 (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 227 (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 227 (PLC) (ISHAQUDDIN SIDDIQUI Versus Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 38(3-a) & 51
Application filed by employee under S. 51, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed by Labour Court
No appeal having been provided against order passed by Labour Court on such application, revision application could not be made to convert appeal into a revision application especially when no question of law arose for adjudication of the Tribunal. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 38(3‑a) & 51‑‑‑Revision application‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Application filed by employee under S. 51, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed by Labour Court‑‑‑No appeal having been provided against order passed by Labour Court on such application, revision application could not be made to convert appeal into a revision application especially when no question of law arose for adjudication of the Tribunal. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Applicant. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1995. This Revision Application has been filed by an employee of State Engineering Corporation who has been transferred to Machine Tool Factory, Landhi being aggrieved by fixation of the Scales of Pay by the authorities of Machine Tool Factory. An application under section 51 of the I.R.O. was filed before the Labour Court, rightly or wrongly for this grievance to be redressed, since section 51 of the LR.O. relates to recovery of money due under a settlement Award. Be that as it may no appeal is provided under the I.R.O. from the decision by the Labour Court under section 51 or purporting to have been made under section 51 of the I.R.O. To circumvent non‑provision of this appeal a Revision Application has been preferred on the same facts and the Revision is being argued as if it was an appeal. This Revision has been made under section 38(3‑a) reads as under:‑‑ "The Tribunal may on its own motion at any time call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Ordinance in which a Labour Court within is jurisdiction has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or a propriety of such order. "
2. This subsection gives the Tribunal discretionary powers for a suo motu revision. In the present case there is no case before the Tribunal in which any order may be rectified. No appeal lies from the order of the Labour Court and no Revision Application can be made to convert such appeal into a Revision Application nor has any question of legality of any importance been shown for correction or adjudication.
3. This Revision Application does not lie and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2560/Lb.S Revision application dismissed.