1997 PLP 459 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus ZULFIQAR INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI and 3 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 459 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus ZULFIQAR INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 459 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 459 (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: 1997 PLP 459 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus ZULFIQAR INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(9) & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Revision was discretionary remedy and no ground having been made out for entertaining revision against order of Labour Court dismissing complaint filed by employee against employer under S. 25‑A(9) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, same was dismissed in limine. Applicant in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(9) & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Revision was discretionary remedy and no ground having been made out for entertaining revision against order of Labour Court dismissing complaint filed by employee against employer under S. 25‑A(9) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, same was dismissed in limine. Applicant in person. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1996. This is a Revision Application filed by one Muhammad Ayub in person, against the order of M/s. Yasmin Abbasi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Karachi.
2. The applicant had moved an application under section 25‑A(9) for taking criminal action against his employers Zulfiqar Industries on, the ground that they had not complied with the orders of the High Court of Sindh and had not made payment of the back benefits to him. The learned Labour Court found that no such default appeared to have been made by the respondent and that they were not, therefore, liable for action under section 25‑A(9) of the I.R.O. The complaint of the applicant Muhammad Ayub was, therefore, dismissed.
3. Muhammad Ayub appears to be habitual litigant and he has been filing frivolous petitions in almost all the Courts making allegations even against the Presiding Officers which are baseless. It appears that some other person is helping him in this racket by drafting and typing petitions, complaints and other applications. He gives the name of that person as Riaz Baloch, 333, Sunny Plaza, McLeod Road, Karachi but none of the pleadings drafted by him bears his name or address. It is possible that the present applicant wants to falsely implicate this Riaz Baloch also for reasons best known to him.
4. Revision is a discretionary remedy and no reasons have been made out for entertaining the same. The order of the Labour Court No. 1 is reasonable and proper and there is no illegality committed by the Labour Court. This Revision Application is accordingly dismissed in limine. The applicant is warned that in case he repeats such frivolous acts, suitable action will be taken against him. H.B.T./187/Lb.S Revision dismissed.