1992 PLP 1235 (PLC(CS))
AINUL HASSAN Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1235 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AINUL HASSAN Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1235 (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 1992 PLP 1235 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1235 (PLC(CS)) (AINUL HASSAN Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD. and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 54 & 55
Complaint for prosecution of respondents for breach of terms of settlement arrived at between parties, ended in acquittal
Labour Court had found that contention put forward by complainant party was vague and there was no mens rea on part of respondents
Then being no misapprehension of any sort involved in evaluation of evidence, no interference was warranted with finding of Labour Court. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 54 & 55
Complaint for prosecution of respondents for breach of terms of settlement arrived at between parties, ended in acquittal
Labour Court had found that contention put forward by complainant party was vague and there was no mens rea on part of respondents
Then being no misapprehension of any sort involved in evaluation of evidence, no interference was warranted with finding of Labour Court. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Applicant. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1992. There was a complaint filed by Muhammad Javed, General Secretary praying for the prosecution of the respondents under sections 54 and 55, IRO for the breach of the terms of the settlement duly arrived at between the parties. It ended in acquittal.
2. I have gone through the order and also heard Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi.
3. It has been held by the Labour Court that the contentions put forward by the complainant party are vague and there is no mens rea on the part of the respondents. At any rate there is no misapprehension of any sort involved in the evaluation of the evidence led by the party. There is therefore no ground to interfere in this Revision Application. I will dismiss it in limine. A.A./2035/Lb.S Application dismissed.