1983 PLP 1214 (PLC)
ATA‑UR‑RAHIM Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. V AND OTHERS
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1214 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fakharuddin H. Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | ATA‑UR‑RAHIM Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. V AND OTHERS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1214 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1214 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fakharuddin H. Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1214 (PLC) (ATA‑UR‑RAHIM Versus SIND LABOUR COURT No. V AND OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hamid Siddiqui for Petitioner.
- Farooq H. Naik for Respondent No. 3.
- AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This is Review Petition of the judgment, dated 29th April, 1978 passed by Abdul Hafeez Memon, J. (as he then was). In support of the above review petition it has been urged by Mr. Farooq H. Naik learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the learned Single Judge erred in not taking into consideration subsection (6) of S. 25‑A of the I. R. O. which was very much in the field at the time when the order of terminating the petitioner's service was passed. From the contents of the judgment under review we notice that the question before the learned Single Judge was whether under section 25‑A the period for serving grie vance notice from the date of cause of action was 3 months or 2 months. The learned Single Judge has held that in view of the plain language of subsection (1) of section 25‑A, the period is 3 months and not 2 months. It may also be observed that the above legal position was conceded by Mr.. Raza Abbas Naqvi the then learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. It was also contended by Mr. Farooq Naik that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the effect of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services Act, 1952. From the judgment under review it seems that the case has been remanded to the lower Court for deciding afresh according to law. The effect of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services Act was not urged before the learned ,g Single Judge and, therefore, we cannot re‑open the case for fresh points.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This is Review Petition of the judgment, dated 29th April, 1978 passed by Abdul Hafeez Memon, J. (as he then was). In support of the above review petition it has been urged by Mr. Farooq H. Naik learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the learned Single Judge erred in not taking into consideration subsection (6) of S. 25‑A of the I. R. O. which was very much in the field at the time when the order of terminating the petitioner's service was passed. From the contents of the judgment under review we notice that the question before the learned Single Judge was whether under section 25‑A the period for serving grie vance notice from the date of cause of action was 3 months or 2 months. The learned Single Judge has held that in view of the plain language of subsection (1) of section 25‑A, the period is 3 months and not 2 months. It may also be observed that the above legal position was conceded by Mr.. Raza Abbas Naqvi the then learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
3. It was also contended by Mr. Farooq Naik that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the effect of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services Act, 1952. From the judgment under review it seems that the case has been remanded to the lower Court for deciding afresh according to law. The effect of the application of the Pakistan Essential Services Act was not urged before the learned ,g Single Judge and, therefore, we cannot re‑open the case for fresh points. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment or the record warranting the review of the judgment. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. A. E. Review application dismissed.