1989 PLP 49 (PLC)
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR Versus GHULAM ABBAS and 5 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 49 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR Versus GHULAM ABBAS and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 49 (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 1989 PLP 49 (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: 1989 PLP 49 (PLC) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR Versus GHULAM ABBAS and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shamshir Iqbal Chaughtai for Petitioner.
- Abdul Shakoor, Shabbir Hussain Shah and Ghulam Abbas for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Burdening parties with costs Case pending in Labour Court‑‑Urgent petition by petitioner transferred to other Labour Court by Appellate Tribunal because of retirement of Presiding Officer of respective Labour Court‑‑Labour Court to which petition transferred burdening respondent with costs for reason that written statement was not filed Impugned order, held, was without jurisdiction and set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Held: (1) Subsequent Labour Court was not seized of main case which was pending in respective Labour Court, and (2) subsequent Labour Court had not previously directed respondent to file written statement.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Burdening parties with costs Case pending in Labour Court‑‑Urgent petition by petitioner transferred to other Labour Court by Appellate Tribunal because of retirement of Presiding Officer of respective Labour Court‑‑Labour Court to which petition transferred burdening respondent with costs for reason that written statement was not filed Impugned order, held, was without jurisdiction and set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Held: (1) Subsequent Labour Court was not seized of main case which was pending in respective Labour Court, and (2) subsequent Labour Court had not previously directed respondent to file written statement. M. Shamshir Iqbal Chaughtai for Petitioner. Abdul Shakoor, Shabbir Hussain Shah and Ghulam Abbas for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1988. The six revisions captioned above arise from the order dated 17‑1‑198" recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the petitioner was burdened with costs of Rs. 200 in each case.
2. The grievance petitions were pending in learned Labour Court No.8 and the said Court was without Presiding Officer on account of the retirement of previous Presiding Officer, therefore, the urgent petitions moved by the respondents were entrusted to the learned Labour Court No. 9 for disposal. The learned Labour Court burdened the petitioner with costs on the ground that written statements were not filed. The impugned order is without jurisdiction, firstly because the said Court was not seized of the main case which were pending in the learned Labour Court No.8 and secondly because even learned Labour Court No. 9 had not previously directed the petitioner to file the written statements. The respondents have not been able to say anything effective in support of the impugned orders. The impugned order therefore are not sustainable.
3. As a result the revisions are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. A.E./298/Lb.P Revisions accepted