1991 PLP 837 (PLC)
Sahibzada K.A.K. AFRIDI Versus CHAIRMAN N.‑W.F.P. and 3 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 837 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Jamil, J |
| Parties | Sahibzada K.A.K. AFRIDI Versus CHAIRMAN N.‑W.F.P. and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 837 (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 1991 PLP 837 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Jamil, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 837 (PLC) (Sahibzada K.A.K. AFRIDI Versus CHAIRMAN N.‑W.F.P. and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner.
- Hidayatullah Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th August, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact with regard to petitioner being not a workman arrived at by Courts of exclusive jurisdiction, could not ordinarily be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court but where Labour Appellate Tribunal, while endorsing views of Labour Court had not only not given any reason for agreeing with findings of Labour Court but had dismissed appeal of petitioner/workman against order of Labour Court in limine without summoning the record of case, High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, remitted case to Appellate Tribunal to decide afresh after sending for record and after considering same to see whether findings of Labour Court were in order.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner. Hidayatullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th August, 1990. The petitioner was found to be a workman by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar and the Chairman, N: W.F.P., Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar endorsed his views. We would not like to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact with regard to the petitioner being not a workman arrived at by the Courts of exclusive jurisdiction but a perusal of the order passed by the Chairman, N.-W.F.P., Labour Appellate Tribunal would reveal that he has not given any reason for agreeing with the findings of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The evidence was led on the nature of the job being done by the petitioner. Such evidence was to be taken into consideration in deciding the question of his being workman which in turn would determine the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that not only his appeal was dismissed in limine, as is evident from the impugned order, but the record of the case was not even summoned. We have gone through the grounds of appeal and we find that the learned (chairman, N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal ought to have at least sent for the record and seen the evidence before concluding that the findings of the Labour Court were in order. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an old case and it is with heavy heart that we have decided to remit the same for consideration by the learned Chairman N.-W.F.P, Labour Appellate Tribunal in the light of the observations made above.
3. The petition is, therefore, accepted, order dated 6-6-1984, passed by the learned Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal; Peshawar is set aside and case remanded to him for decision afresh. No order as to costs. H.B.T./1238/P Case remanded.