1984 PLP 1137 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus SAEED AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1137 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus SAEED AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial, Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1137 (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 1137 (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: 1984 PLP 1137 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus SAEED AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Petitioner.
- Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 47 (2) read with S. 15 (d)‑Workers union raising industrial dispute‑ Employer intending to dismiss officer‑bearer and such office‑bearer making application to Labour Court under S. 47 read with S. 15 (d) with prayer for interim stay‑Labour Court granting temporary injunction restraining employer from dismissing applicant (office‑bearer) till decision of application‑Contention in revision before appellate Tribunal that main application of office‑bearer was not maintainable hence there could be no interim injunction‑Such point, held, yet to be decided by Labour Court‑ Impugned tem porary injunction however modified by appellate Tribunal directing that till disposal of main application of office‑bearer by Labour Court no disciplinary action shall be taken except in accordance with law‑Revision‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).
Judgment & Decree
Petition No. LHR‑82 of 1980, decided on 24th January, 1982. ‑‑ S. 47 (2) read with S. 15 (d)‑Workers union raising industrial dispute‑ Employer intending to dismiss officer‑bearer and such office‑bearer making application to Labour Court under S. 47 read with S. 15 (d) with prayer for interim stay‑Labour Court granting temporary injunction restraining employer from dismissing applicant (office‑bearer) till decision of application‑Contention in revision before appellate Tribunal that main application of office‑bearer was not maintainable hence there could be no interim injunction‑Such point, held, yet to be decided by Labour Court‑ Impugned tem porary injunction however modified by appellate Tribunal directing that till disposal of main application of office‑bearer by Labour Court no disciplinary action shall be taken except in accordance with law‑Revision‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a). Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Petitioner. Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1982. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the respondent‑Union raised an industrial dispute. The petitioner wanted to dismiss respondent No. 1 so he made an application under section 47 read with section 15 (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in which an application for interim stay was made. The lower Court issued interim injunction and the said order has been challenged in this revision. By the injunction the lower Court restrained the petitioner from dismissing the respondent till the decision of the petition. My learned predecessor while granting interim injunction modified the order of the lower Court to the effect that no disciplinary action should be taken against the office‑holders of the Union, except in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the main petition brought by the respondent is not sustainable. there was no interim injunction order. The lower Court has to finally decide this point, 'therefore, no opinion can be expressed at this stage. I partly accept the revision and modify the impugned order of the lower Court directing that till the disposal of the grievance petition of the respondent by the lower Court, no disciplinary action shall be taken against the office‑holders of the Union, except in accordance with law. A.E. Revision partly accepted.