1989 PLP 108 (PLC)
N/A
| Citation | 1989 PLP 108 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 108 (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 1989 PLP 108 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 108 (PLC) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 38 (3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(1)-‑‑Precedent of Labour Appellate Tribunal wrongly interpreted by Labour Court while deciding a grievance petition‑‑Labour Court's finding that Standing Orders Ordinance applied to a dismissed employee purported to be based on a precedent of Labour Appellate Tribunal was repelled‑‑Such employee was covered by the definition of `workman' as contained in Ordinance VI of 1968 and Ordinance XXIII of 1969 and not that same applied to a dismissed employee. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 24th May, 1987. The revision captioned above gives information that the order dated 21‑1‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is wrong and improper.
2. The petitioner made a miscellaneous application before the learned lower Court for the dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground that the respondent was a dismissed person and thus was not a workman. While dismissing that application the learned lower Court has held that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to the petitioner. For holding so the learned lower Court has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal dated 29‑5‑1984.
3. It has been argued that the ruling of this Court has been wrongly applied by the learned lower Court. In reality this Tribunal did not hold in Appeal No. FD/119/Punjab decided on 29‑5‑1984 that Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable to the petitioner establishment. The question involved in the said appeal was whether the employee in that case was covered by the definition, of workman given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. While holding that he was covered by the definition, it was also remarked that he was covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. By it I did not mean that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was applicable. No such point was under discussion in the said case nor it was decided. Since according to the duties performed by the employee in that case, he was covered by the definition of workman given in both the Ordinances, therefore, it was held so. The point, therefore, that the Standing Orders Ordinance applies or not is to be independently decided by the learned lower Court. So far as application for i interim injunction is concerned, the same has not been disposed of by the impugned order, rather the learned lower Court has invited evidence. With these observations, the revision is disposed of. AA./363/Lb. P Order accordingly.