1994 PLP 76 (PLC)
DILSHAD MUHAMMAD Versus M/s. PAKISTAN INTERNATIOAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 76 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DILSHAD MUHAMMAD Versus M/s. PAKISTAN INTERNATIOAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 76 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 76 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 76 (PLC) (DILSHAD MUHAMMAD Versus M/s. PAKISTAN INTERNATIOAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.M. Jeelani for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 1st September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee who was involved in a case of gold smuggling, was issued a charge‑sheet and after hearing was dismissed from service‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employee against his dismissal was dismissed by Court and even appeal preferred by him before Tribunal was also dismissed‑‑‑Employee who later on was acquitted, filed fresh grievance petition before Court treating it as a fresh cause of action, which was dismissed by Court ‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, envisaged only one grievance notice followed by a petition before Court‑‑‑Said remedy having been sought earlier by employee, there would be no question of fresh cause of action thereafter as matter had taken a finality. Muhammad Rafique v. State 1982 SCMR 1047 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 1st September, 1993. DECISION The appellant was employed as a Senior Technician with the P.IA. He came to be involved along-with some other person or persons, in a case of gold smuggling, and was issued a charge‑sheet on 6‑3‑1989. After a hearing by the Chairman he was dismissed from service on 24‑7‑1989.
2. He had filed a petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed. An appeal preferred before the Tribunal met with the same fate.
3. However a criminal case he was facing before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) ended in his acquittal, as per judgment dated 14‑5‑1991. Treating it as a fresh cause of action, the appellant had filed a fresh petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed culminating in this appeal.
4. The I.R.O. envisages only one grievance notice followed by a petition before the Labour Court. This remedy had been sought earlier and in my humble opinion there will be no question of a fresh cause of action thereafter, as the matter had taken a finality.
5. Mr. M.M. Jeelani learned counsel for the appellant has however referred me to the case of Muhammad Rafique v. State reported in 1982 SCMR page 1047.
6. It appears from the judgment that the petitioner had been removed from service after the conviction and sentence by the Special Judge, Anti -Corruption. There was an appeal taken to the High Court, which was admitted, and he was ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. He had filed another application praying that the judgment of the Special Judge be suspended and he be deemed to continue in service which came to be dismissed by the High Court and later was dismissed by Supreme Court as well. .
7. I am afraid the case hardly lends any support to the contention of the learned counsel, and that is true also about the other citation namely General Manager, G.T.S. N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar and another v. Rehmat Shah. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine. H.B.T./2227/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.