P L D 1979 Karachi 443 (PLP)
KARACHI-Petitioner Versus LABOUR COURT No. VI, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents constitutional Petition No. S-18 of 1978, decided on 25th November 1978.
| Citation | P L D 1979 Karachi 443 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | order on that account.-Industrial dispute. |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, J |
| Parties | KARACHI-Petitioner Versus LABOUR COURT No. VI, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents constitutional Petition No. S-18 of 1978, decided on 25th November 1978. |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Karachi 443 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Karachi 443 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the order on that account.-Industrial dispute. bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Karachi 443 (PLP) (KARACHI-Petitioner Versus LABOUR COURT No. VI, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents constitutional Petition No. S-18 of 1978, decided on 25th November 1978.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Mateen for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing : 25th November 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3-Limitation-Contention that appeal. though time-barred yet law of limitation not applicable to case due to impugned order being illegal and without jurisdiction-Held, not correct-Authority having jurisdiction may pass wrong orders, not strictly justified on law and on facts, but law of limitation would not cease to apply to such order on that account.-[Industrial dispute]. Respondent No. 3 (absent).
Judgment & Decree
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑ S. 3‑Limitation‑Contention that appeal. though time‑barred yet law of limitation not applicable to case due to impugned order being illegal and without jurisdiction‑Held, not correct‑Authority having jurisdiction may pass wrong orders, not strictly justified on law and on facts, but law of limitation would not cease to apply to such order on that account.‑[Industrial dispute]. Abdul Mateen for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Respondent No. 3 (absent). Date of hearing : 25th November 1978.