1993 PLP 277 (PLC)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN TEXTILE MILS LTD. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER and others
| Citation | 1993 PLP 277 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Manan, J |
| Parties | MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN TEXTILE MILS LTD. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 277 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 277 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: S.A. Manan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 277 (PLC) (MANAGING DIRECTOR, CROWN TEXTILE MILS LTD. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Petitioner.
- Kh. Tariq Mehmood for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Petitioner. Kh. Tariq Mehmood for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1992. In this case respondent No. 2 Mazdoor Ittehad Union has filed an application under section 8‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court. No. 3 to the effect that their application for registration is pending before the Registrar and till such time the office‑bearers of the Union should not be transferred, discharged, dismissed or otherwise punished. Alongwith this application, dated 19th September, 1992 an application for stay was also filed and the learned Labour Court on 24th September, 1992 granted status quo order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in this Court to the effect that status quo order could only be granted in respect of the office‑bearers of the respondent‑Union and not to the members thereof. The learned counsel has elaborated that there are 9 office‑bearers while there are 60 members of the union.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has agreed that the Labour Court could only pass a status quo order in respect of the office‑bearers and not as to the members of the respondent‑Union. In this view of the matter it is manifestly clear that the interim order passed by the Labour Court would only be considered in respect of the office bearers and not as against the members of the union. This being the case no further relief is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter is already pending before the Labour Court where the parties will deliberate their case in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑675/L Order accordingly.