1976 PLP 461 (PLC)
WORKERS' UNION Versus SALIM INDUSTRIES LTD.
| Citation | 1976 PLP 461 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WORKERS' UNION Versus SALIM INDUSTRIES LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 461 (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 1976 PLP 461 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 461 (PLC) (WORKERS' UNION Versus SALIM INDUSTRIES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafiq for Appellant.
- Khurshid Ahmad Slddiqui for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 37-Appeal-Labour Court's order refusing to restore petition under S. 32(1-A) dismissed for non-prosecution-Not an award, hence not appealable. L. L. C. 1970, 347 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Appeal No. 866 of 1973, decided on 22nd April 1974.
S. 37-Appeal-Labour Court's order refusing to restore petition under S. 32(1-A) dismissed for non-prosecution-Not an award, hence not appealable. L. L. C. 1970, 347 rel. Shafiq for Appellant. Khurshid Ahmad Slddiqui for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. 111, Karachi, dated the 10th of December 1972, whereby the learned Labour Court refused to restore the application filed under section 32(1-A) of the I. R. O. of 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'), for non-prosecution. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned -. Representative for the respondent that no appeal lies as it is not an Award. On the other hand Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that it is an Award as the result of the order to restore the application is adjudication of the application itself. Mr. Siddiqui, for the respondent, relied on my decision reported in 1970 L. L. C. 347. In almost similar circumstances I have held that no appeal lies from an order refusing) to restore the case. I have given elaborate reasons why the order is not, appealable. No prejudice is caused to the respondent-Union as it can make application that the decision being not on merit cannot operate as adjudicated. The appeal dismissed on that ground as not maintainable.