1995 PLP 532 (PLC)
Rana SHAUKAT ALI Versus EXECUTIVE VICE‑PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP 532 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Rana SHAUKAT ALI Versus EXECUTIVE VICE‑PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 532 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 532 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1995 PLP 532 (PLC) (Rana SHAUKAT ALI Versus EXECUTIVE VICE‑PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant.
- Ch. Irshadullah Chatha for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th August, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court qua Labour Courts and Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Labour Courts and Appellate Tribunal are subject to writ jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Dictum laid down by High Court 'to be followed‑‑‑‑Dictum of High Court pending decision before Supreme Court‑‑ Labour Court, in circumstances, held, should pass conditional orders subject to decision of Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant. Ch. Irshadullah Chatha for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th August, 1986. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 6‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition was directed to be returned to the appellant for lack of jurisdiction. 2.The learned lower Court has relied upon 1985 PLC 1053, wherein it has been held that bank employees who have been removed from service cease to remain covered by the definition of workmen and that the Wage Commission Award not being an Award as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for its violation Labour Courts cannot be approached for the relief. As the orders passed by this Tribunal and the Labour Courts are subject to writ jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, the dictum laid down by the said Court are to be followed. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly relied upon the ruling mentioned above. But since the said ruling stands challenged before the Supreme Court, the unconditional order of return of grievance petition is not justified. If the Supreme Court holds that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction and this appeal is dismissed, the appellant shall have to challenge the order of the learned lower Court in writ petition. In these circumstances it is proper to give direction that if the Supreme Court holds that the Labour Courts in such matters have jurisdiction, the workers shall have a right to get their cases decided on merits from the Labour Courts.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision, it is directed that if the Supreme Court decides that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction in such matters, the appellant will be entitled to get his grievance petition decided on merits by the learned Labour Court. A.E./161/Lb.P Orders accordingly.