1987 PLP 335 (PLC)
ABDUL MAJID KHAN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE
| Citation | 1987 PLP 335 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | M.S.H. Quraishi, Chairman, |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID KHAN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 335 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 335 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: M.S.H. Quraishi, Chairman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 335 (PLC) (ABDUL MAJID KHAN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 15, 22‑D(1) & 53‑‑Complaint‑‑Dismissal for non‑prosecution‑ Appeal against order of dismissal‑‑Order appealed against not governed by provisions of S. 22‑D(1) of Ordinance and term dismissal used in the section not covering dismissal of complaint‑‑Appeal, held, not maintainable‑‑Appeal in a criminal matter under Ordinance, held, would lay only against a sentence. Abdul Majid Khan in person.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H.QURAISHI (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑This appeal has been heard under subsection (4) of section 22‑B of I.R.O., 1969 in the absence of third learned Member Mr.S. Rais Ahmed Jafri, who is on tour to Lahore. The appellant had filed a complaint under section 15 read with section 53 of I. R. O., 1969 which was dismissed on 24‑9‑1985 for non‑prosecution on account of his absence on that day. Stay application moved in the complaint was also dismissed by the same order. The appellant who is present in person submits that his case had been before Raja Iftikharullah khan from the very beginning who had been hearing it at Lahore, that after he left, the case was assigned to Mr. Mahmood Akhter, who fixed a date on 24‑8‑1985 at Islamabad and that on receipt of notice of the date and place of hearing, he sent an application praying for hearing the case at Lahore and also for fixing another date. The application is on the file but does not appear to have been noticed by the learned Member‑I because his order is totally silent about it. He, therefore, urges that the dismissal was due to no fault on his part, that it was due to oversight of the Bench and that, therefore, he should not be made to suffer for the fault of Court. He has, therefore, prayed that the order dismissing his complaint and the stay a plication be set aside and the same be restored. Unfortunately, the order, impugned is not governed by the provision of section 22‑D (1) of I. R.O, 1969. The appellant submits that the impugned order amounts to a decision and as such is appealable. We are not satisfied that the term decision used in the section covers the dismissal of complaint. Appeal in a criminal matter under 2, I.R.O. lies only against a sentence. That being so, the appeal is not maintainable. The appellant may take other remedy available to him under the law. M.Y.H./801Lb Appeal dismissed.