1989 PLP 348 (PLC)
ALAMGIR Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,MULTAN and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP 348 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ALAMGIR Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,MULTAN and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 348 (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 348 (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 348 (PLC) (ALAMGIR Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,MULTAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Appellant.
- Sh. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 1(3)((), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Wes, Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stan‑ling Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1908), S. 12(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Termination of services‑‑Application under S. 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could be lodged by virtue of S.O. 12(3) of Ordinance VI of 1968‑‑Whether Standing Orders Ordinance, 1908 was applicable or not, Court would decide same after giving opportunity to both parties‑‑Finding of Appellate Court below whereby grievance petition of appellant had been dismissed on sole ground that by virtue of S. 1(3)(0 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Ordinance VI of 1908 was not applicable, arrived at without appearance of respondent and without any written statement having been filed by him‑‑Order of lower Appellate Court set aside and case remanded with direction that opportunity be given to respondent to file written statement and case be decided after giving opportunity to both parties.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Ss. 1(3)((), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Wes, Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stan‑ling Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1908), S. 12(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Termination of services‑‑Application under S. 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could be lodged by virtue of S.O. 12(3) of Ordinance VI of 1968‑‑Whether Standing Orders Ordinance, 1908 was applicable or not, Court would decide same after giving opportunity to both parties‑‑Finding of Appellate Court below whereby grievance petition of appellant had been dismissed on sole ground that by virtue of S. 1(3)(0 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Ordinance VI of 1908 was not applicable, arrived at without appearance of respondent and without any written statement having been filed by him‑‑Order of lower Appellate Court set aside and case remanded with direction that opportunity be given to respondent to file written statement and case be decided after giving opportunity to both parties. H.R. Haider for Appellant. Sh. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 26th March, 1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the grievance petition eel the appellant has been dismissed on the sole ground that by virtue of section 1(x)(1‑) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Ordinance is not applicable. May it be so, but in cases of termination of' services an application under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 can be lodged by virtue of Order 12(3) of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. In the present case none appeared for the respondents before the learned lower Court with the result that no written statement was on the record. If an objection is raised on the point whether Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable or not, the Court will decide the same after giving opportunity to both the parties. The decision of the learned lower Court in these circumstances is not sustainable.
2. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded with the direction that opportunity he given to the respondents to file written statement and after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence on the disputed point the case he decided afresh. M.Y.H./426/Lb.P Appeal accepted.