1987 PLP 56 (PLC)
KARACHI TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. and others
| Citation | 1987 PLP 56 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and K. A. Ghani, JJ |
| Parties | KARACHI TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1958)‑‑, (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 56 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1958)‑‑, (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 56 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and K. A. Ghani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 56 (PLC) (KARACHI TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shibli for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art . 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Labour matters‑‑General instructions by employer for guidance of employees‑‑Interference with such instructions in writ jurisdiction by High Court, held, was not justifiable. ‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Invoking of‑‑Charge‑sheets to employees issued under Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, held, were not assailable in writ jurisdiction‑‑Employee aggrieved by final action if having no other adequate remedy available could invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art . 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Labour matters‑‑General instructions by employer for guidance of employees‑‑Interference with such instructions in writ jurisdiction by High Court, held, was not justifiable. (b) Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1958)‑‑-- ‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Invoking of‑‑Charge‑sheets to employees issued under Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, held, were not assailable in writ jurisdiction‑‑Employee aggrieved by final action if having no other adequate remedy available could invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court. Muhammad Shibli for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 18th September, 1986. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑The petitioner has felt aggrieved against the general instructions issued by the respondent in respect of its employees. We do not find any justification to interfere at this stage with the general instructions issued by an employer for A the guidance of its employees if there is any action taken by the respondent against the petitioner or any other employee in his individual capacity, then the petitioner or the aggrieved employee may seek his remedy, whatever that may be. The petitioner has also felt aggrieved against certain charge sheets which have been issued to certain employees of the respondents where an action under Sind Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1958 is threatened. The issue of mere charge‑sheet is hardly a matter which should be brought to this Court for the purpose of relief The employees who have been issued charge‑sheets are required to submit their replies and they should do so. We are sure that the respondent B will give due regard to the answers submitted by the employees and due inquiry will be held into the charges. At the moment there is hardly any justification for the petitioner to challenge the issue of these charge‑sheets. If eventually action is finally taken by the respondent against the employees and they have no other adequate remedy available, then alone they can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, this petition is not found to be sustainable and is hereby dismissed in limine. A. E./5172/K Petition dismissed.