1995 PLP 562 (PLC)
NAZIR AHMAD TABASUM Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (URBAN), LAHORE
| Citation | 1995 PLP 562 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Mohammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD TABASUM Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (URBAN), LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 562 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 562 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Mohammad 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 562 (PLC) (NAZIR AHMAD TABASUM Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (URBAN), LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36, & 38(5)‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Labour Court passing interim "Stay Order for the time being" against transfer of petitioner‑‑‑Stay Order not extended on next date of hearing‑‑‑Transfer of petitioner there4fter, held, involved no contempt of Court because Stay Order came to end on next date of hearing.
- Asmat Kamal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 1986.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36, & 38(5)‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Labour Court passing interim "Stay Order for the time being" against transfer of petitioner‑‑‑Stay Order not extended on next date of hearing‑‑‑Transfer of petitioner there4fter, held, involved no contempt of Court because Stay Order came to end on next date of hearing. Asmat Kamal for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1986. This is a complaint under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for proceeding against the respondent for contempt of Court. The learned lower Court passed a stay order for the time being. The next date was 18‑6‑1985. The petitioner, therefore, was kept in the yard and order of transfer was not implemented. On 3‑10‑1986 he was sent to 7‑Up Factory Stop and for this reason complaint has been brought alleging that the stay order has been violated. The stay order was up to 18‑6‑1985 but since it was not extended the order, dated 3‑10‑1986, whereby the petitioner was sent to work at 7‑Up Factory Stop, was not in violation of the said stay order. The order that status quo be maintained for the time being could not last for a year and a quarter. Since the next date was 18‑6‑1985, the stay order came to an end on the said date. So, no contempt has been committed.
2. As a result, the complaint is dismissed in limine. A.E./211/Lb.P Complaint dismissed,