1986 PLP (1) (PLC(CS))
UNITED SUGAR MILLS Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
| Citation | 1986 PLP (1) (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | UNITED SUGAR MILLS Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (1) (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 1986 PLP (1) (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (1) (PLC(CS)) (UNITED SUGAR MILLS Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.G. Rabbani for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑‑Interim stay restraining employer from ejecting terminated worker from residential quarter‑‑Order of Labour Court not a speaking order set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal remanding case for redecision.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑‑Interim stay restraining employer from ejecting terminated worker from residential quarter‑‑Order of Labour Court not a speaking order set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal remanding case for redecision. M.G. Rabbani for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985. The order dated 31‑10‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8. Bahawalpur is reported to be without jurisdiction.
2. In the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑instatement in service a petition for ad interim stay was made for restraining the petitioner from ejecting the respondent from the quarter allotted to him. It has been argued that according to Standing Order 16, a removed person from service cannot retain quarter for more than 2 months. The learned lower Court has not passed a speaking order. No ground is given how the respondent has a prima facie case and how balance of convenience goes in his favour and which irreparable injury he has toy suffer from by the refusal of the stay order.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the learned lower Court is directed to redecide the application for temporary injunction giving cogent reasons. A. E. Revision accepted .