1989 PLP 296 (MLD)
ASHFAQ AHMAD BAJWA‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 296 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | ASHFAQ AHMAD BAJWA‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 296 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 296 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 296 (MLD) (ASHFAQ AHMAD BAJWA‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Bokhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Jurisdiction‑‑‑ When a tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter anything said by it in respect thereof would be without jurisdiction ‑‑‑S.3‑‑Limitation‑‑Tribunal not deciding question of limitation on merits but ignoring same on plea that it had no jurisdiction‑‑ Tribunal, held, had fallen into patent legal error‑‑High Court remanded case for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Iftikhar Ahmad v. National Bank of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 53 rel. 1985 PLC 1053 ref:
Judgment & Decree
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑- ‑‑‑S.3‑‑Limitation‑‑Tribunal not deciding question of limitation on merits but ignoring same on plea that it had no jurisdiction‑‑ Tribunal, held, had fallen into patent legal error‑‑High Court remanded case for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Iftikhar Ahmad v. National Bank of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 53 rel. 1985 PLC 1053 ref: M.S. Bokhari for Petitioner. This application has been filed for the recall of the order of this Court dated 19‑6‑1988 m view of the fact that the legal position stood cleared by virtue of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad v. National Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 53). The only point raised by the learned counsel on the previous occasion was that the question of limitation should not be ignored in the process while following the dictum of the Supreme Court in remanding the case. It was observed by this Court that question of limitation could be agitated by the respondent and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal would decide it after hearing both the sides in accordance with law. The learned counsel supporting this application has tried to argue that the case has been decided by Punjab Labour Appellate Court vide its order dated 26‑5‑1986 on merits. I have confronted the learned counsel with a finding recorded in the impugned order by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on a Miscellaneous application for rehearing filed before it, wherein it has been observed: - "Following 1985 PLC 1053 it was held by this Tribunal vide decision dated 26th May, 1986 that the Labour Court and this Tribunal had no jurisdiction." I must add that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction nothing said by him in the course of the impugned order is worth the paper on which it is written as it is without jurisdiction`. In such circumstances I think it is going too far to suggest or to canvass that the decision has been rendered on merits. Punjab Labour Appellate Court had fallen, into a patent legal error in view of the Supreme Court pronouncement and this Court in its light rightly remanded the case for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. In view of what has been stated above this Civil Misc. filed by the learned counsel under section 151, C.P.C. in the nature of review is also incompetent. Let the petitioner join the proceedings before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal will pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties and considering their pleas. This application is accordingly disposed of. M.Y.H‑/A‑488/L Case remanded.