1979 PLP 328 (PLC)
AFTAB HUSSAIN, GENERAL SECRCTARY, MCP/MPO/WAPDA WORKERS UNIDN, JAMSHORO Versus MANZOOR AHMAD SHAIKH, GENERAL SECRETARY, MLP EMPLOYEES' UNION, JAMSHORO
| Citation | 1979 PLP 328 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AFTAB HUSSAIN, GENERAL SECRCTARY, MCP/MPO/WAPDA WORKERS UNIDN, JAMSHORO Versus MANZOOR AHMAD SHAIKH, GENERAL SECRETARY, MLP EMPLOYEES' UNION, JAMSHORO |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 328 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 328 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 328 (PLC) (AFTAB HUSSAIN, GENERAL SECRCTARY, MCP/MPO/WAPDA WORKERS UNIDN, JAMSHORO Versus MANZOOR AHMAD SHAIKH, GENERAL SECRETARY, MLP EMPLOYEES' UNION, JAMSHORO). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 38 (3‑A) & 62‑Prosecution under S. 62 failing and accused acquitted on ground of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 having been extended to Establishment and Labour Court bereft of jurisdiction‑Date of notification given by trial Court, however, not correct and prosecution filed much earlier than issue of notification‑Order of acquittal set aside and case remanded for disposal according to law. F. M. Rizvi for Applicant. Rafiq Ahmad for the Opponent. A prosecution under section 62 of tile Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed in the Labour Court. A preliminary objection was taken that Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, was extended to the Establishment and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. This plea was accepted and the acquittal order gas passed. Consequently, an appeal was filed but my learned predecessor entertained the view that appeal was not maintainable and he treated the appeal as Revision.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that the Labour Court erred with regard to the various dates when the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was extended to the Establishment. The learned Presiding Officer had stated in his Order that the Notification was issued on 27‑6‑1976, whereas the complaint was filed on 1‑7‑1976 and, there fore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred. The learned counsel pointed out that the date of the issue of the Notification given by the learned Presiding Officer was not correct as the Notification was issued on 27‑8‑1976 and he has placed before me the original Notification and this supports his contention. It is clear enough that the prosecution was filed much earlier than the Notification was extended to the Establishment.
3. In the circumstances, I allow the Revision application and set aside the Order of the acquittal' passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, and remand the case for disposal in accor dance with law. Case remanded.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 38 (3‑A) & 62‑Prosecution under S. 62 failing and accused acquitted on ground of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 having been extended to Establishment and Labour Court bereft of jurisdiction‑Date of notification given by trial Court, however, not correct and prosecution filed much earlier than issue of notification‑Order of acquittal set aside and case remanded for disposal according to law. F. M. Rizvi for Applicant. Rafiq Ahmad for the Opponent. A prosecution under section 62 of tile Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed in the Labour Court. A preliminary objection was taken that Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, was extended to the Establishment and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. This plea was accepted and the acquittal order gas passed. Consequently, an appeal was filed but my learned predecessor entertained the view that appeal was not maintainable and he treated the appeal as Revision.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that the Labour Court erred with regard to the various dates when the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was extended to the Establishment. The learned Presiding Officer had stated in his Order that the Notification was issued on 27‑6‑1976, whereas the complaint was filed on 1‑7‑1976 and, there fore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred. The learned counsel pointed out that the date of the issue of the Notification given by the learned Presiding Officer was not correct as the Notification was issued on 27‑8‑1976 and he has placed before me the original Notification and this supports his contention. It is clear enough that the prosecution was filed much earlier than the Notification was extended to the Establishment.
3. In the circumstances, I allow the Revision application and set aside the Order of the acquittal' passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, and remand the case for disposal in accor dance with law. Case remanded.