2015 PLP 251 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ABBAS ALI Versus M.D. WASA, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 2015 PLP 251 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice Ch. Muhammad Tariq, Chairman |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABBAS ALI Versus M.D. WASA, GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 251 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 251 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Justice Ch. Muhammad Tariq, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 251 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ABBAS ALI Versus M.D. WASA, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 47
Jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to review its orders
Applicant sought review of order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal
Application for review did not seek correction of an error in the impugned order but prayed for passing an altogether new order
Vast distinction existed between "rectification" and "review" and in the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, remedy of review had not been provided, therefore after signing of order and announcing it, the same could not be reopened through review application and could neither be annulled, set aside or modified through an application for review as the same had not been provided in the statute
Application was dismissed. 2003 CLC 1189 and Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1981 SC 94 rel. Applicant in person.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ (CHAIRMAN).
The applicant seeks review of order dated 20-11-2014 passed by this Tribunal on the various grounds recorded in the review application.
2. The contents of application perused. The applicant does not seek the correction of an error in the impugned order dated 20-11-2014 rather he prays for altogether passing a new order which is not warranted under the law. There is a vast distinction between rectification and review.
3. Rectification shall means to make a correction. Rectification confines itself to exercise the powers to correct only the clerical or arithmetical mistake in a judgment/order which have occurred due to accidental slip or omission. The definition of rectification cannot be stretched nor its scope can be widened to an extent thereby defeating the manifest intent of the legislature. Once court/judge signs and pronounce judgment. Thereafter the court ceases to exercise jurisdiction in the same matter as he become functus officio. (Relied on 2003 CLC 1189).
4. When a judgment is singed and announced, the aggrieved party may assail the impugned order/judgment before the higher Courts in appeal/revision or may file a review application in the same court, if the remedy of review has been provided in such statute because right of review is a substantive right and always a creation of the relevant statute on the subject.
5. A review is proceedings which exist by virtue of statute. It is in the nature of new trial of the issue, previously tried between the parties. The cause of action being brought into court again for trial by a new petition. (Relied on law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi reported as PLD 1981 SC 94)
6. Except the above remedies a previous judgment could not be re-opened. In the PIRA, 2010, the remedy of the review has not been provided. Therefore, after signing the judgment/order and announcing it, the same could not be re-opened through a review application.
7. The nutshell of the above discussion is that a judgment signed and announced could not be declared annulled, set aside or modified by means of an application for review if the remedy of review has not provided in statute. The application in hand is without any substance. Same is dismissed in limine. KMZ/13/PLT Application dismisse