1986 PLP 633 (PLC(CS))
SARGODHA and 4 others Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SARGODHA and 5 others
| Citation | 1986 PLP 633 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SARGODHA and 4 others Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SARGODHA and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑, JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 633 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑, JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 633 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab 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: 1986 PLP 633 (PLC(CS)) (SARGODHA and 4 others Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SARGODHA and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 36‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Necessary party‑‑Employer is necessary party in labour cases of disputes between workers and employers. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in person. The order dated 18‑12‑1985 is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Vide the impugned order the learned lower Court struck of the names of the Mayor Municipal Corporation, Sargodha from the list of respondents. Both of them are employers of the petitioners. In labour cases the dispute is between the workers and the employer, therefore, the employers are the necessary parties. Needless to say that without a necessary party a case cannot run. The learned Lower Court thus committed mistake in striking of the names of respondents Nos. l and 2who were necessary party. Accordingly the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the names of Municipal Corporation, Sargodha and Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Sargodha are restored as respondents. The case is sent back for decision on merits. A.E. Case remanded.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in person. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 5 and
6. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1986. The order dated 18‑12‑1985 is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Vide the impugned order the learned lower Court struck of the names of the Mayor Municipal Corporation, Sargodha from the list of respondents. Both of them are employers of the petitioners. In labour cases the dispute is between the workers and the employer, therefore, the employers are the necessary parties. Needless to say that without a necessary party a case cannot run. The learned Lower Court thus committed mistake in striking of the names of respondents Nos. l and 2who were necessary party. Accordingly the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the names of Municipal Corporation, Sargodha and Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Sargodha are restored as respondents. The case is sent back for decision on merits. A.E. Case remanded.