1993 PLP 914 (PLC)
LAHORE through General Manager Versus Raja GHAZANFAR ALI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 914 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | LAHORE through General Manager Versus Raja GHAZANFAR ALI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 914 (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 1993 PLP 914 (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: 1993 PLP 914 (PLC) (LAHORE through General Manager Versus Raja GHAZANFAR ALI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Asghar for Petitioner.
- Zafar Saleem for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2D‑A & 38(3‑a)‑--Grievance petition‑-‑Ad interim order‑‑‑Petition against dismissal from service‑‑‑Dismissal order since served upon and received by petitioner and implemented by striking him off from roll of establishment‑‑‑Employer, in circumstances, held, could not be prevented from implementing impugned order‑‑‑Ad interim order passed by Labour Court preventing employer from dismissing petitioner workman during pendency of grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision. PLD 1970 SC 17 rel.
Judgment & Decree
PLD 1970 SC 17 rel. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Petitioner. Zafar Saleem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4‑10‑1986 stopping the petitioner from implementing the order of dismissal dated 10‑9‑1986 passed against the respondent, is without jurisdiction.
2. On the charge of misconduct the respondent was charge‑sheeted and after holding an inquiry was dismissed from service on 10‑9‑1986. The respondent had on 9‑9‑1986 brought an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the charge‑sheet and inquiry proceedings. He prayed for ad interim stay order to prevent the petitioner from dismissing him from service during the pendency of the grievance petition. The petition was accepted vide the impugned order dated 4‑10‑1986. The learned lower Court has not said that the order of dismissal was not given effect to. Question of staying an order arises when such an order has not yet been implemented. The order of dismissal was sent to the respondent by registered post, which reached him on 14‑9‑1986 as is evident from photocopy of A.D. receipt Annexure `F'. It carries the date as 14‑9‑1986. Photocopies of the attendance register have been brought on the file, which show that the name of the respondent was struck off on account of the dismissal order. Since the dismissal order had been given effect to and had been implemented by sending the respondent off duty and by striking off his name from the roll of the petitioner, no question of preventing the petitioner from implementing the said order could arise. Of course if the grievance petition succeeds, there will be issued a direction to give duty to the respondent. No stay order could, therefore, be issued. PLD 1970 SC 17 or 491 may be cited in this respect.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the order of injunction dated 4‑10‑1986, the petition for ad interim injunction is dismissed. A.E./223/Lb.P Revision dismissed.