1999 PLP 391 (PLC)
Messrs PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and another Versus IRFAN AHMED
| Citation | 1999 PLP 391 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzilur Rahman, Chairman |
| Parties | Messrs PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and another Versus IRFAN AHMED |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 391 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 391 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzilur Rahman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 391 (PLC) (Messrs PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and another Versus IRFAN AHMED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 38(3-a) .& 51
Application for computing short amount of pension-- Maintainability
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
On filing application by employee before Labour Court under S.51, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for computing alleged short amount of pension claimed by employee, objection was raised by employer that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain said application, but despite said objection application was entertained and decided by Labour Court
Pre-condition for maintainability of application under S. 51, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was existence of any "decision", "award" or "settlement" by Arbitrator, Labour Court and Tribunal, which was completely lacking in the matter of employee
Labour Appellate Tribunal remanded case to Labour Court to first decide question of jurisdiction which was a question of law. S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Applicants. Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1999. This is a Revision Application under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O. whereby the order dated 19th May, 1998 has been challenged. 2. The grievance of the applicants is that in the Reply Statement to the Application filed by the respondent under section 51 of the I.R.O. they had taken certain Legal Objections wherein inter alia, it has been stated that the learned Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969 for computing the alleged short amount of the pension claimed by the respondent inasmuch as the pre‑condition for the maintainability of Application under section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 as the existence of any "Decision, Award or Settlement" by an Arbitrator, Labour Court and Tribunal which is completely lacking in the present case. As already held by me in Revision Applications No. KAR‑269 of 1998, KAR‑270 of 1998, KAR‑271 of 1998 Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Ali Ahmed, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Ghansham Das, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Muhammad Khan, decided on 18‑12‑1998. In this view of the matter while setting aside the impugned order dated 19th May, 1998 the learned 5th Labour Court is directed to hear and decide the question of law as raised in paragraph 2 of the Reply Statement filed by the applicants/respondent. Since the matter pertains to the jurisdiction to determine the quantum of pension it will be appreciated that the learned Court should decide this case as early as possible. Announced in open Court this the 26th day of January 1999. H.B.T./285‑K/Lab.(Trib.) Order accordingly.