2007 PLC 419 (PLP)
THE STATE Versus DAILY "DOPAHR", ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2007 PLC 419 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman |
| Parties | THE STATE Versus DAILY "DOPAHR", ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 1977 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLC 419 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 1977 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLC 419 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLC 419 (PLP) (THE STATE Versus DAILY "DOPAHR", ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mubarak, Office Assistant/Translator, Daily Dopahr, Islamabad for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 15(1)(i)(ii)--Grievance petition
Case of employee was that he was appointed as Office Assistant through a verbal order, but that claim of petitioner was denied by the employer
Petition not relating to individual grievance of petitioner within the purview of Implementation. Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 1977, therefore, petition did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and thus, was not maintainable
Petitioner, could seek his remedy as provided to him under the law, before such competent forum which had jurisdiction to redress his, grievance.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).
Petitioner submits that he was appointed as Office Assistant by the respondent through a verbal order. Also submits that a sum of Rs.1,000 only was paid to him as remuneration. Through his petition he claims a sum of Rs.18427 as arrears of his pay.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents who have submitted their reply wherein the claim of the petitioner as a Newspaper Employee under the respondent-Establishment has been vehemently denied.
3. When confronted, the petitioner has not been able to produce either his appointment letter or any other tangible documentary evidence to establish his claimed employment.
4. Reference may be made to the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 1977 which deals with the disposal of the individual grievance in Rule 15(1)(i)(ii). The provisions of the rules do not admit the entertainment of the instant application of the rules do not admit the entertainment of the instant application before this Tribunal as it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not included in the declaration forms submitted by the Management or that he joined service after the submission of such declaration form.
5. The case of the petitioner in essence is that he was employed by the respondent-Establishment although through a verbal order. This claim has been denied by the respondent-Establishment as hereinbefore stated.
6. For the above said reasons as the petition does not relate to the individual grievance within the purview of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 1977 the petition does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek his remedy as provided to him under the law, before such competent forum which has jurisdiction to redress his grievance. No order as to costs. H.B.T./3/IT Petition dismissed.