1995 PLP 405 (PLC)
SUNBLE ZAREEN KHAN Versus M/s. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, KARACHI through its Base Manager
| Citation | 1995 PLP 405 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUNBLE ZAREEN KHAN Versus M/s. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, KARACHI through its Base Manager |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 405 (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 1995 PLP 405 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 405 (PLC) (SUNBLE ZAREEN KHAN Versus M/s. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, KARACHI through its Base Manager). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Raza Naqvi for Appellant.
- Farooq A. Ghani, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 1995.
- 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that although the Standing Orders do not apply to his case on account of the Notification, he relies on the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The substantive provisions of law:' are contained in the Standing Orders and the Industrial Relations Ordinance describes the procedure applicable to such cases. If the substantive law does not apply the law of procedure cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. If there is any Service Agreement, the appellant can proceed against Air Lines in any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction but labour laws will not be applicable to her Case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Employee who was employed as Air‑Hostess in foreign Airline had filed grievance petition against her employer‑‑‑Employer Airline was exempted from operation of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by a notification‑‑‑Employee contended that though Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to her case, on account of notification, she could rely on Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Contention of employee was repelled in view of the fact that substantive provision of law contained in the Ordinances had described procedure applicable to such cases‑‑‑If substantative law would not apply, law of procedure could not come to rescue of employee.
Judgment & Decree
Anwar Raza Naqvi for Appellant. Farooq A. Ghani, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th February, 1995. Appellant Sumble Zareen Khan was employed as an Air‑Hostess in Saudi Arabian Airlines. She continued in service for about 2 years. She resigned from her job in Saudi Arabia after about 2 years and returned to Pakistan. She then filed a grievance application before the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. The respondent Saudi Arabian Air Lines relied on the Notification of the Government of Pakistan exempting the Air Lines from operation of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The learned Labour Court accordingly dismissed the grievance application for want of jurisdiction. Against this order the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that although the Standing Orders do not apply to his case on account of the Notification, he relies on the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The substantive provisions of law:' are contained in the Standing Orders and the Industrial Relations Ordinance describes the procedure applicable to such cases. If the substantive law does not apply the law of procedure cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. If there is any Service Agreement, the appellant can proceed against Air Lines in any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction but labour laws will not be applicable to her Case.
3. The order of the Labour Court is therefore maintained, and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2422/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.