1984 PLP 1264 (PLC(CS))
SUI‑NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE Versus ABDUL HAQ
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1264 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SUI‑NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE Versus ABDUL HAQ |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1264 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1264 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1264 (PLC(CS)) (SUI‑NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE Versus ABDUL HAQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Mohsin Zaidi for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 23rd April, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 36 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV, r. 2‑Provisions of O. XIV, r. 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 not applicable to Labour Court‑Labour Court not prohibited to decide question of jurisdiction before decision on merits ‑Labour Court has discretion to decide question of jurisdiction first if possible without delay in disposal of case ‑ Grievance petition before Labour Court challenged on ground of jurisdiction No elaborate evidence needed for such issue except production of notification regarding establishment being covered by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑Order of Labour Court declining to decide question of jurisdiction before deciding case on merits, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision because disposal of case would not be delayed' by decision of question of jurisdiction in instant case ‑ Revision Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 36 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV, r. 2‑Provisions of O. XIV, r. 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 not applicable to Labour Court‑Labour Court not prohibited to decide question of jurisdiction before decision on merits ‑Labour Court has discretion to decide question of jurisdiction first if possible without delay in disposal of case ‑ Grievance petition before Labour Court challenged on ground of jurisdiction No elaborate evidence needed for such issue except production of notification regarding establishment being covered by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑Order of Labour Court declining to decide question of jurisdiction before deciding case on merits, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision because disposal of case would not be delayed' by decision of question of jurisdiction in instant case ‑ Revision Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a). Syed Muhammad Mohsin Zaidi for Petitioner. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd April, 1984. The order dated 3rd November, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this revision, whereby the learned lower Court declined to decide the question of applicability of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the appellant establishment, before deciding the case on merits.
2. A copy of the decision of Writ Petition No. 4956 of 1983 has been filed, wherein it has been held that Order XIV, rule 2 is not applicable to the tribunals of limited jurisdiction and that such a Tribunals being of limited jurisdiction should first decide the question of jurisdiction. There is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that the question of jurisdiction should be decided before deciding the case on merits. At the same time there is no prohibition. So, it is the discretion of the Labour Courts to propose to decide the question of jurisdiction first, if avoiding the delay in the disposal of the case, it is possible. In the present case no elaborate evidence is required to decide the question of jurisdiction. Some notifications are to be produced and the learned lower Court after their careful perusal has to decide if without break the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 has been made applicable to the appellant or not. In my view the disposal of the case will not be delayed by the decision of the question of jurisdiction in this particular case.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned) order, the learned lower Court is directed to decide the question of jurisdiction before deciding the case on merits. A. E. Revision accented