1984 PLP 41 (PLC)
RATA KHAN Versus DAWOOD COTTON M ILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 41 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | RATA KHAN Versus DAWOOD COTTON M ILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 41 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 41 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 41 (PLC) (RATA KHAN Versus DAWOOD COTTON M ILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. M. Maarif for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance loll I of 1W69)‑‑ ‑‑ S. 38 ‑Review‑Appellate decision of Labour Appellate Tribu nal‑Cannot be reviewed by Tribunal‑‑[Hyderi Tin Factory v. Muhammad Yousuf 1975 P L C S10 dissented from]. Hyderi Tin Factory v. Muhammad Yousuf 1975 PLC 510 dissented from. Haji Sulaiman Usman and others v. Gulab Khan 1980 P L C 262 and Ahmad Food industries v. Sind Laboyr Appellate Tribunal 1974 P L C 225 Eel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 38 ‑Review‑Appellate decision of Labour Appellate Tribu nal‑Cannot be reviewed by Tribunal‑‑[Hyderi Tin Factory v. Muhammad Yousuf 1975 P L C S10 dissented from]. Hyderi Tin Factory v. Muhammad Yousuf 1975 PLC 510 dissented from. Haji Sulaiman Usman and others v. Gulab Khan 1980 P L C 262 and Ahmad Food industries v. Sind Laboyr Appellate Tribunal 1974 P L C 225 Eel. Ch. M. Maarif for Appellant. DECISION This purports to be an application for review .of the order, dated 24th November, 1981 of this Tribunal. Mr. Ch. M. Maarif was asked to show how this Court was competent to review its orders. He relied upon the decision of my learned predecessor in Appeal No. KAR‑146 of 1974, in support of his contention that this Tribunal has the power to review its decision. The said decision and the decision in the case of Hyderi Tin factory v. Muhammad Yousuf (1975 P I. C 510), where a similar view was expressed by my learned predecessor. were examined at some length by this Tribunal in the case of Haji Sulaiman. Usman and others v. Gulab Khan (1980 P L. C 262''). It may be mentioned that Ch. M. Maarif, the learned representative for the applicant the 'Instant case was appearing in the said case, and therefore, ought to have known about the reported decision. In the reported case, after reviewing the case law on the subject, it was held, relying on the decision of Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Ahmad Food Industries v. Sind Laborur Appellate Tribunal (1974 P L C 225) and the decision given by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 209 of 1979, that nol4 power of review is invested in of conferred upon this Tribunal under I. R O The decision in the case of Haji Sulaiman Usman has been consistently followed by this Tribunal.
2. In view of the above Position, the application by Raza Khan is dismissed as not maintainable. A. E. Application dismissed,