1990 PLP 534 (PLC)
ARSHAD BEGUM and 2 others Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHELUM
| Citation | 1990 PLP 534 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ARSHAD BEGUM and 2 others Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHELUM |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 534 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 534 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar 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: 1990 PLP 534 (PLC) (ARSHAD BEGUM and 2 others Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHELUM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N. Naz, Representative for Appellants.
- Ch. Mahmood Ahmed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Grievance petition against suspension and verbal termination‑‑‑Neither written statement was obtained nor evidence of parties invited on points and issues‑‑‑Labour Court dismissed petition as pre‑mature on grounds that no termination order had yet been passed‑‑ Labour Court not recording any finding on point of suspension‑‑‑Impugned order of Labour Court, held, was not maintainable‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal set aside order of Labour Court and remanded case for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties. The three appeals captioned above are being disposed of through this single judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved.
2. The case of the appellants is that their services were orally terminated and before that they were suspended. They, therefore, in their grievance petitions challenged the orders of their suspension as well as oral termination. Learned counsel for the respondent made statement before the learned lower Court in the grievance petitions that the appellants had not been terminated from service. Nothing was said on the point of suspension. The learned lower Court, on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, dismissed the grievance petitions as pre‑mature observing that if any order was passed terminating, the service only then it may be challenged. It has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, so far as George Nadeem is concerned, that he was not suspended but the representative of the appellant says that the said worker was also suspended and if the case had proceeded in the learned lower Court this fact would have been proved. Since the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on the point of suspension, the impugned order is not maintainable. The impugned orders were passed by the learned lower Court without even inviting written statements from the respondent. The parties were at the issues even on the question of termination of service, therefore, learned lower Court should have after inviting evidence from the parties on the point decided the case.
3. As a result the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions the cases are remanded with the direction that after inviting written statement from the respondent and after affording opportunity to both the parties to bring evidence on the points and issues the petitions should be decided afresh. A.E./443/Lb.P Cases remanded.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Grievance petition against suspension and verbal termination‑‑‑Neither written statement was obtained nor evidence of parties invited on points and issues‑‑‑Labour Court dismissed petition as pre‑mature on grounds that no termination order had yet been passed‑‑ Labour Court not recording any finding on point of suspension‑‑‑Impugned order of Labour Court, held, was not maintainable‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal set aside order of Labour Court and remanded case for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties. N. Naz, Representative for Appellants. Ch. Mahmood Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1987. The three appeals captioned above are being disposed of through this single judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved.
2. The case of the appellants is that their services were orally terminated and before that they were suspended. They, therefore, in their grievance petitions challenged the orders of their suspension as well as oral termination. Learned counsel for the respondent made statement before the learned lower Court in the grievance petitions that the appellants had not been terminated from service. Nothing was said on the point of suspension. The learned lower Court, on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, dismissed the grievance petitions as pre‑mature observing that if any order was passed terminating, the service only then it may be challenged. It has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, so far as George Nadeem is concerned, that he was not suspended but the representative of the appellant says that the said worker was also suspended and if the case had proceeded in the learned lower Court this fact would have been proved. Since the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on the point of suspension, the impugned order is not maintainable. The impugned orders were passed by the learned lower Court without even inviting written statements from the respondent. The parties were at the issues even on the question of termination of service, therefore, learned lower Court should have after inviting evidence from the parties on the point decided the case.
3. As a result the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions the cases are remanded with the direction that after inviting written statement from the respondent and after affording opportunity to both the parties to bring evidence on the points and issues the petitions should be decided afresh. A.E./443/Lb.P Cases remanded.