1986 PLP 320(1) (PLC)
NAZIRUL HASNAIN Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF
| Citation | 1986 PLP 320(1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | NAZIRUL HASNAIN Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 320(1) (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 1986 PLP 320(1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 320(1) (PLC) (NAZIRUL HASNAIN Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5thOctober, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Revision‑‑Scope‑‑Order which cannot be vacated by authority passing it only can be challenged in revision‑‑Ad interim order not yet gaining finality‑‑Vacation of such order within jurisdiction and competence of Labour Court‑‑Not open to revision before appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
PAKISTAN Ltd. Revision No. SL‑344 of 1985/Pb., decided on 9th October, 1985. ‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Revision‑‑Scope‑‑Order which cannot be vacated by authority passing it only can be challenged in revision‑‑Ad interim order not yet gaining finality‑‑Vacation of such order within jurisdiction and competence of Labour Court‑‑Not open to revision before appellate Tribunal. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 5thOctober, 1985. The order, dated 2‑4‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the operation of the order, dated 26‑3‑1985 was suspended, is reported to be of no legal effect. Vide order, dated 26‑3‑1985 the grievance petition of the petitioner was accepted ex parte and he was directed to be re‑instated in service. The respondents made an application for setting aside the ex parte decision, dated 26‑3‑1985. The impugned order, dated 2‑4‑1985 was ad interim and not final as the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner instead of coming to this Court should have asked the learned lower Court to vacate the same. It is argued that the learned Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is on special duty and thus is not functioning at Multan, but this is no ground for challenging an order which has not yet gained finality. Needless to say that only that order can be challenged in revision which cannot be vacated by the authority passing it.
2. As a result, the revision having no force is dismissed in limine, but Court No. 8, Bahawalpur is authorised to dispose of any application for vacation of order, dated 2‑4‑1985 if the petitioner happens to move for it. Revision dismissed.