PLC 1999

1999 PLP 413 (PLC)

ARSHAD ALI Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. II and 3 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Revision Application No.KAR-390 of 1998, decided on 1st February, 1999.
Honorable Judges
Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999 PLP 413 (PLC)
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman
Parties ARSHAD ALI Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. II and 3 others
Primary Law Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 413 (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 1999 PLP 413 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 413 (PLC) (ARSHAD ALI Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. II and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 25-A, 38(3-a) & 51(1)

Grievance petition

Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of

Employee filed grievance petition and thereafter application under S.51(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which remained pending for about a year and after framing of charge no further proceedings were taken

Employer, after about one year filed application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Labour Court stopped hearing of application filed by employer under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. and ordered to proceed with application under S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

Order of Labour Court not suffering from any infirmity, incorrectness, illegality or impropriety, revision against said order was dismissed. Rafiullah for Applicant.

Judgment & Decree

Rafiullah for Applicant. This is a revision application under suo motu power of the Court vested under section 38(3‑a) of I.R.O., 1969 which was presented on 19th December, 1998.

2. I have perused the order, dated 24‑8‑1998 impugned in the present revision

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was a workman with respondent No.4. His services were orally terminated on 28‑4‑1997 in retaliation to the formation of trade union. He gave grievance notice to respondent No.4. Having received no reply he filed grievance application under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O. 1969, thereafter, he also filed a complaint under section 51(1) of I.R.O., 1969 before the Labour Court. A formal charge was framed against respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 in May, 1997. Mr. Rafiullah stated at the bar that there were no further proceedings in the application under section 51(1), I.R.O. 1969 after framing of the charge. About a year after on 21st May, 1998 an application was moved by the, respondent under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. which is still pending. The learned Labour Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed an order whereby he stopped the hearing of application under section 249‑A as well as complaint and ordered to proceed with the application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969.

4. I have thoughtfully considered the impugned order and I find no infirmity, incorrectness or illegality or impropriety in the order impugned before me and as such the Revision Application is dismissed in limine. Announced in open Court the 1st day of February, 1999 H.B.T,/305/K/Lab. (Trib) Revision dismissed.