1988 PLP 1005 (PLC(CS))
GHULAM NABI LODHI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1005 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI LODHI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1005 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1005 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1005 (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM NABI LODHI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Mohammad Asghar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 10th February 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A (8) & (9)‑‑Non‑implementation of order of Labour Court‑‑No period fixed by Court for implementation‑‑Complaint for‑‑Word "therein" used in C.l. (a) of subsection (9) aims at decision and not subsection (8) of S. 25‑A about filing of complaint‑‑Where no period was fixed by Court, case, held, would be covered by conferral clause (b) of subsection (9) of S. 25‑A of Ordinance XXIII of 1969 and Court which decided case can bring complaint‑‑Petitioner, held, could bring complaint only where period was fixed by Labour Court. 1987 S C M R 13 held not applicable.
Judgment & Decree
1987 S C M R 13 held not applicable. Malik Mohammad Asghar for Appellant. Date of hearing: 10th February 1987. This is an appeal against the order dated 10‑1‑1987 passed by the learned residing Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, where by the complaint hr ought by the appellant under section 25‑A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the non‑implementation of the order of the Labour Court. has been dismissed for the reason that the complaint could be brought by the Court and not by the appellant.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that time was fixed within which the order was to be implemented, therefore, according to subsection (8) of Section 25‑A, complaint could be brought by the appellant. The decision for the non‑implementation of which the complaint was brought, is silent on the point. No period was fixed. While deciding the appeal this Tribunal also did not fix any period within which the order was to be implemented. According to clause (a) of subsection (9), a workman can bring the complaint himself if the decision is not implemented within the period specified therein. The word `therein' aims at the decision and not subsection (8). The cases where no period is fixed, come under the general clause (b) of subsection (9), according to which, the Court, which decided the case, can bring the complaint. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1987 S C M R 13 but the same is not germane to the case in hand. The ruling arose from the judgment of the High Court whereby the ‑incused had been acquitted for (sic). The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and setting aside the order of acquittal awarded punishment of imprisonment for 111e, and fine. No such question as is involved in the present case was before the Supreme Court. The impugned order therefore is correct and proper ana does not require any interference.
3. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed in limine. A.E./288/Lb. P. Appeal dismissed.