PLC 1993

1993 PLP 463 (PLC)

OPAL LABORATORIES WORKERS' UNION, KARACHI Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Decided Date
Appeal No. KAR‑125 of 1992, decided on 12th January, 1993.
Honorable Judges
Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1993 PLP 463 (PLC)
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
Bench Members Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
Parties OPAL LABORATORIES WORKERS' UNION, KARACHI Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
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 1993 PLP 463 (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 1993 PLP 463 (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: 1993 PLP 463 (PLC) (OPAL LABORATORIES WORKERS' UNION, KARACHI Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant.
  • Abdul Latif Saghar for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 10th January, 1993.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Application for interpretation of a settlement‑‑‑Earlier application for the interpretation of some of the clauses of Settlement was dismissed by predecessor Court on the ground that the language of the clauses whose interpretation was sought were free from all ambiguity, and therefore, such clauses did not need any interpretation at all‑‑‑Repetition of application for interpretation of same clauses being misconceived same was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Application for interpretation of a settlement‑‑‑Earlier application for the interpretation of some of the clauses of Settlement was dismissed by predecessor Court on the ground that the language of the clauses whose interpretation was sought were free from all ambiguity, and therefore, such clauses did not need any interpretation at all‑‑‑Repetition of application for interpretation of same clauses being misconceived same was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant. Abdul Latif Saghar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1993. This is an application filed under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the interpretation of a Settlement, dated 26‑9‑1990.

2. It has been pointed out by Mr. Latif Saghar, appearing on behalf of the respondents that there was a previous application for the interpretation of the same clauses which was dismissed by my learned predecessor on 11‑R‑1991 in which it was held that the language of the clauses whose interpretation was sought were free from all ambiguity and therefore did not need any interpretation at all.

3. The repetition of the application, under the circumstances, was absolutely misconceived. I would, therefore, dismiss the application. A.A./2148/Lb.S Application dismissed.