1989 PLP 359 (PLC)
SHARBAZ KHAN Versus POINEER STEEL MILLS LTD. and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP 359 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhanrmad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SHARBAZ KHAN Versus POINEER STEEL MILLS LTD. and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 359 (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 359 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhanrmad 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 359 (PLC) (SHARBAZ KHAN Versus POINEER STEEL MILLS LTD. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shabbir Ahmed for Appellant.
- Ch. Fazal Hussain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVII, R.3‑‑Dismissal of grievance petition in default and for want of proof‑‑Restoration application and appeal‑‑Both remedies could be availed of simultaneously‑‑Labour Court dismissing restoration application on short ground that its order had been appealed against‑‑Held: Simple ground that main order had been challenged in appeal was not sufficient to dismiss application for restoration‑‑Impugned order was set aside by Appellate Tribunal and application for restoration remanded to Labour Court for decision on merit.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVII, R.3‑‑Dismissal of grievance petition in default and for want of proof‑‑Restoration application and appeal‑‑Both remedies could be availed of simultaneously‑‑Labour Court dismissing restoration application on short ground that its order had been appealed against‑‑Held: Simple ground that main order had been challenged in appeal was not sufficient to dismiss application for restoration‑‑Impugned order was set aside by Appellate Tribunal and application for restoration remanded to Labour Court for decision on merit. Ch. Shabbir Ahmed for Appellant. Ch. Fazal Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 7‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the application for restoration of the grievance petition was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the grievance petition of the appellant was aced for 19‑5‑1987 on which date evidence was to be produced by the appellant. On that date nobody appeared for the appellant, therefore, the learned lower Court applied Order 17, Rule 3 and dismissed the petition for want of proof as well as for non‑appearance. The appellant brought an application for the restoration, which has been dismissed on the short ground that the appellant had challenged the main order whereby the grievance petition was dismissed for want of proof and in default, in appeal before this Court. The learned lower Court has observed that no law was shown according to which both the remedies could be availed of, simultaneously. Since the order of dismissing the petition for want of proof and in default is subject to appeal, the appeal was rightly brought. This is nullity if the. e appeal could succeed or not on merits. So, the simple ground that the appellant has challenged the main order of dismissal of the petitions in appeal was not sufficient to dismiss the petition for restoration of the grievance petition. Learned in counsel for the respondent has not been able to say anything in support of the impugned order.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the petition for restoration of the grievance petition is remanded for decision on merits. A.E/44l/Lb.P Petition remanded.