1987 PLP 584 (SCMR)
Syed WAZARAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI Petitioner Versus NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION C0. and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 584 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Syed WAZARAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI Petitioner Versus NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION C0. and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 584 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 584 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 584 (SCMR) (Syed WAZARAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI Petitioner Versus NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION C0. and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Obaidur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, Karachi in P. No. D‑14 of 1986, dated 3‑2‑1986) ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑‑Post rendered surplus on completion of job‑‑Retrenchment from service‑‑Order impugned‑‑High Court in writ jurisdiction, after re‑appraisal of evidence held that instead of petitioner another employee should have been retrenched and that petitioner was entitled to pay and other benefits till such date that said other employee continued in service‑‑Order being unexceptionable in law or on facts, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑‑Post rendered surplus on completion of job‑‑Retrenchment from service‑‑Order impugned‑‑High Court in writ jurisdiction, after re‑appraisal of evidence held that instead of petitioner another employee should have been retrenched and that petitioner was entitled to pay and other benefits till such date that said other employee continued in service‑‑Order being unexceptionable in law or on facts, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Obaidur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1986. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Facts of this case briefly stated are that petitioner was employed as a Draftsman in the Juna Bander Joint Venture since 8‑7‑1976. He was retrenched from service by the order, dated 13‑10‑1980 on the ground that the post against which had been rendered surplus as the entire job was completed. He filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance 1969 which succeeded before the Labour Court but on appeal the Appellate Tribunal set aside that order and upheld the plea that petitioner had been rendered surplus hand due to the completion of the joint‑venture job against which he was appointed. Petitioner then challenged this order in a Constitution Petition before Sind High Court and the learned Judges of the Division Bench who dealt with the case on re‑appraisal of evidence held that another employee namely 'Mr. Khalil Ahmed should have been discontinued and he should have been retrenched in place of the petitioner. Mr. Khalil had worked upto 28‑1‑1982 and the petitioner's services were terminated on 13‑10‑1980, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the pay and other benefits for this period and to this extent the petition is allowed, with no order as to costs. It is in these circumstances that petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing in support o1 the petition, we find that no exception in law or on facts can be taker against the view that has prevailed in the High Court. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is dismissed. M.I. /W‑1/S Petition dismissed.