1989 PLP 230 (SCMR)
Messrs HILAL-E-PAKISTAN PUBLISHERS — Petitioner Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1 and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 230 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs HILAL-E-PAKISTAN PUBLISHERS — Petitioner Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1 and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 230 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 230 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 230 (SCMR) (Messrs HILAL-E-PAKISTAN PUBLISHERS — Petitioner Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1 and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasan Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind, dated 12-10-1987, in C.P. No. D-228/1981).
S. 25-A--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Labour Court allowed worker's grievance petition under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, and appeal against said order filed by employer dismissed by Labour Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution and his application for restoration thereof also dismissed for insufficiency of grounds urged--Employer challenged order of Labour Appellate Tribunal in a Constitutional petition mainly on the ground that worker's petition under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, before Labour Court was time-barred--Constitutional petition filed by employer dismissed by High Court on the ground that he did not raise question of limitation before Labour Court and order passed by Labour Appellate Tribunal was not suffering from any infirmity of jurisdiction--Judgment of High Court was based on valid reasons--Leave to appeal against order of High Court refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Hasan Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1988. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑G.N. Bazmi, respondent No. 3, was in the employment of the petitioner when his service was terminated on 10th April, 1976. On his application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 3 with back benefits.
2. The petitioner then challenged the order of the Labour Court in an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, but the same was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 27th November, 1980. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration of the appeal which was also dismissed for insufficiency of grounds urged.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal in a Constitutional petition, mainly on the ground that respondent No. 3's petition under section 25‑A was time‑barred. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Sind High Court, held, that as the petitioner had not challenged the order of the Labour Court before whom the question of limitation was not even otherwise raised, the Constitutional petition was not in proper form. Additionally they were of the view that the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was indeed the subject‑matter of challenge before them did not suffer from any infirmity of jurisdiction. Accordingly they dismissed the Constitutional petition by their judgment dated 10th December, 1987.
4. In seeking leave to appeal it is mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel that although the learned Judges of the Division Bench found the petition of respondent No. 3 under section 25‑A to be barred by limitation, they unjustifiably refused relief to the petitioner. We find no force in this contention and are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court is based upon valid reasons inasmuch as the petitioner itself did not challenge the order of the Labour Court and had not raised the point of limitation before the Labour Court. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./H‑54/S Petition dismissed.