1989 PLP 1479 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus PHILIPS ELECTRICAL CO. OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1479 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, IJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus PHILIPS ELECTRICAL CO. OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1479 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1479 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, IJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1479 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus PHILIPS ELECTRICAL CO. OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 11‑6‑83 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in .W.P.2458/83). ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Termination of service‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal had found that application of petitioner before Labour Court was barred by time and that order of termination of his service was based upon his own resignation‑‑Such findings did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 11‑6‑83 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioner from the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
2. The petitioner was an employee of resp6ndent No.l. His services were terminated on the basis of resignation allegedly tendered by him. He challenged the order of termination of services before the Labour Court. By an order dated 24‑11‑1981, the Labour Court accepted the petition and directed his reinstatement in service. Respondent No.l filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that not only the petitioner had tendered his resignation on his own but that his petition before the Labour Court was barred by time. Accordingly, it accepted the appeal of respondent No.l and set aside the order of the Labour Court. The petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challege the legality of the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. As noticed earlier, the learned Appellate Tribunal has found that the application of the petitioner before the Labour Court was barred by time and that the order of termination was based upon his own resignation. The learned A counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that these findings suffer from any infirmity. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.BA./M‑854/S Petition dismissed.