1992 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))
Syed KHURSHEED HAIDER Versus ALLAUDDIN KHALID
| Citation | 1992 PLP 672 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed KHURSHEED HAIDER Versus ALLAUDDIN KHALID |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 672 (PLC(CS)) (Syed KHURSHEED HAIDER Versus ALLAUDDIN KHALID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1991. This Revision Application is moved by Mr. Khursheed Haider person with the request that this Tribunal in exercise of its powers under section 38(3-a) should consider the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 31-1-1991 passed by the learned Presiding officer 1st Sindh Labour Court at Karachi in Application No. 73 of 1989 pending in the said Court. It appears, that during the pendency of the proceedings the applicant moved an application under section 56 of IRO 1969 for prosecuting one of the respondents Allauddin Khalid for giving false statement on oath in the Court. The learned Labour Court, however, dismissed the application holding, that he would consider it at the time of final decision of the case as to whether said Allauddin Khalid had committed perjury. The appellant has relied upon PLD 1984 Supreme Court 44 where their Lordships held that perjury is one of the most heinous social and moral offences to ruin the life or reputation of an innocent person or put into jeopardy his liberty by falsely involving him in a criminal case or cause damage to his property, and the Court shall not take a light view of such cases but award stiffer sentences. The view of the learned Labour Court that the question as to whether the witness had committed perjury or not would be decided at the time of final decision does not appear to be illegal or improper. Such a decision while the case was still pending is likely to prejudice the case of the party. As such I find nothing illegal or improper in the order to warrant interference with the impugned order. The Revision Application is dismissed with this observation that at the time of final decision the question as to whether said Allauddin had made false statement on oath or not be considered by the Trial Court. It appears that the matter is fixed for final arguments by the Labour Court. The grievance application pertains to year 1989 is about two years old. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the case within one month. M.Y.H./1860/Lb. S Application dismissed.