1988 PLP 263 (PLC)
GHULAM NABI LODHI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD.,
| Citation | 1988 PLP 263 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Masud Ahmad Ansari, Presiding Officer, |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI LODHI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD., |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 263 (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 1988 PLP 263 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Masud Ahmad Ansari, Presiding Officer,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 263 (PLC) (GHULAM NABI LODHI Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD.,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A (8) & (9)‑‑Non‑compliance with decision/order of Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Complaint against‑‑Labour Court passing order for reinstatement of petitioner workman‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑No date or period specified for implementation of order either by Labour Court or by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Petitioner workman filing complaint against non -implementation of order‑‑Complainant workman, in circumstances, held, could not initiate criminal proceedings for non‑compliance of order‑ Complaint could be made by Labour Court‑‑Complainant not praying that complaint be filed by Labour Court‑‑Complaint dismissed as not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Nabi Lodhi, complainant has filed a complaint under section 25‑A(8) of Industrial Relations Ordinance alleging that he was re‑instated in service by Labour Court and the order of Labour Court was upheld by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but in spite of that the respondents did not comply with the decision in as much he was not allowed to resume duty. He has requested that the respondents may be summoned and punished for not having complied with the order of the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken up a preliminary objection that the order of the Labour Court dated 10‑1‑1985 and that of‑the Appellate Tribunal dated 9‑7‑1985 did not specify and period in which the order had to be implemented. Thus, the complainant has no locus standi to lodge a complaint. It Is the Labour Court or Labour Tribunal which can lodge complaint. The present complainant is incompetent and may be thrown away.
3. During the course of proceeding the respondent filed an application that the complainant has resigned from service and has received Rs. 1,99,000 by way of full and final settlement and thus, has ceased to be in the employment of the respondent. After getting reply on this application I framed an issue on this point. Today it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that no issue should have been framed because the complaint is ab initio incompetent. I agree. Instead of giving a finding on a question of criminal nature the Court should examine the competence of the complaint first.
4. The subsection (9) of section 25‑A reads as under:‑ "(9) No person shall be prosecuted under subsection (8) except on a complaint in writing‑‑ (a) by the workman if the order or decision in his favour is not implemented within the period specified therein, or (b) by the Labour Court or Tribunal, if an order or decision thereof is not complied with." I have seen Judgment of Labour Court dated 10‑1‑1985 and that of the learned Appellate Tribunal dated 9‑7‑1985. The Court as well as the learned Tribunal did not specify the date by which the order of reinstatement had to be implemented. Obviously, .the complainant workman could not initiate criminal proceedings for non‑compliance o: the orders. In his complaint it has not been prayed that the complain should be filed ‑ by the Court. The complaint by the complainant himself is not maintainable. It is dismissed. A.E./296/Lb.P