1970 PLP 37 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD NAZIR BISWA Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE
| Citation | 1970 PLP 37 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Industrial Appellate Tribunal West Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAZIR BISWA Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 37 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 37 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal West Pakistan bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 37 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD NAZIR BISWA Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghazanfar Siddiqi for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal against on order of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court (Northern Zone), Lahore, dated 27th June 1968. The impugned order was passed on an application under sections 11 and 12, of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), and Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders).. The learned Chairman came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable under sections 11 and 12, of the Ordinance and that Standing Order 18, also could not apply in the case of the appellant, as he was not an office-bearer of the Union. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed in the Press of the Progres?sive Papers Limited, Lahore. He was in the service of the press for the last 8 years. His services were terminated from 16th March 1968, on the ground of misconduct. The appellant challenged his dismissal on the ground that he was not allowed an opportunity to defend himself. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents that the application of the applicant (now appellant), was not maintainable. The objection found favour with the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court.
3. The appellant has appeared in person. I agree with the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court that the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance could not give jurisdiction to the Court to set aside the order of dismissal. Section 11 of, the Ordinance narrates function of the Court, while section 12, of the Ordinance prescribes the procedure and powers of the 4 Court. These two sections do not confer airy power on the Court to order his re‑instatement:
4. Standing Order 18, also would have no application, as,B the appellant, admittedly, is not an office‑bearer of the Union.
5. An order on an application under sections 11 and 12 of, the Ordinance, or on an application under Standing Order 18 cannot be said to be an order within the meaning of section 16 of the Ordinance, so as to give right of appeal to the Tribunal would hold that the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.