1984 PLP 1722 (PLC(CS))
GHULAM ALI Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GARDEN
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1722 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi: Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GHULAM ALI Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GARDEN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1722 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1722 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: 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: 1984 PLP 1722 (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM ALI Versus PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GARDEN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Rana Faiz Ullah Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th July 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Grievance petition against termination of services pending in Labour Court‑No order yet passed on application for stay order because of Presiding Officer being on vacation leave‑Workman claiming stay order in revision‑Revi sion, in circumstances, held, mis-conceived and instead miscella neous application for issue of stay order till Presiding Officer Labour Court returned from leave should have been made‑Re vision remaining pending for long time and petitioner work man not caring to apply to Labour Court for stay order‑ Revision, in circumstances, held, not maintainable hence dismiss ed.
Judgment & Decree
Revision Petition No. LHR‑257 of 1983, decided on 22nd July, 1984. ‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Grievance petition against termination of services pending in Labour Court‑No order yet passed on application for stay order because of Presiding Officer being on vacation leave‑Workman claiming stay order in revision‑Revi sion, in circumstances, held, mis-conceived and instead miscella neous application for issue of stay order till Presiding Officer Labour Court returned from leave should have been made‑Re vision remaining pending for long time and petitioner work man not caring to apply to Labour Court for stay order‑ Revision, in circumstances, held, not maintainable hence dismiss ed. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner. Rana Faiz Ullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th July 1984. This is a revision claiming a stay order in the shape of status quo. The petitioner is a driver. He was terminated on account of alleged vision failure. With spectacles he can see. The main case is pending before the learned lower Court. Since as yet no order has been passed by the learned lower Court rejecting the prayer of maintenance of status quo, the revision is mis-conceived. If the Court was not functioning due to vacation, not a revision but a miscellaneous application for issuing stay till the Court returned from leave should have been made. The revision has remained pending for a very long time but as yet the petitioner has no cared to apply to the learned lower Court for stay order. In these circumstances the revision is not maintainable and is thus dismissed. A. E. Revision dismissed.