1989 PLP 913 (PLC(CS))
KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM
| Citation | 1989 PLP 913 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 913 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 913 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 913 (PLC(CS)) (KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saleem Baig for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 37 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Appeal‑‑Revision‑‑Order of Labour Court allowing withdrawal of grievance petition with permission to bring fresh one was not a decision under S. 25‑A and not appealable‑‑Order passed by Labour Court without any request on behalf of petitioner‑‑Labour Court, held, was not competent to pass such order‑‑Appellate Tribunal treated appeal as revision and set aside order of Labour Court remanding case for disposal under law.
Judgment & Decree
The order dated 10‑7‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad allowing the respondent to withdraw his grievance petition with permission to bring fresh one, has been challenged.
2. Notice of appeal was sent to the respondent through jail where he is serving two years R.I. and in response to it his application was received for the adjournment of the case till the time he was released from jail after serving out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. He was served with another notice by registered post through the same jail informing that the case could not be kept pending for such a long time, therefore, he should arrange to engage some counsel, but no reply to the notice has been received back, nor the notice has come back undelivered. It is presumed that the notice has been served upon the respondent, so the revision has been heard ex parte.
3. The impugned order is not a decision given under section 25‑A, so no appeal lies. The appeal, therefore, has been treated as a revision.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel for the respondent refused to sign the statement recorded by the learned lower Court saying that the respondent was in jail and that he had no instruction to withdraw the case and to ask for permission to bring fresh petition. Withdrawal of the case with permission to bring fresh one has been ordered for the reason that the grievance petition was not presented by the respondent himself but was presented by his counsel. A perusal of the file shows that the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent does not bear his signatures. This fact coupled with the circumstances that the respondent, being in jail, was not in a position to present the fresh grievance petition personally, shows that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the learned counsel for the respondent refused to withdraw the case and sign the statement not made by him. There being no request for withdrawal of the case with permission to bring fresh one, the learned lower Court was not competent to pass the impugned order.
5. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for disposal in accordance with law. A.E./584/Lb. P Revision accepted.