PLC 1978

1978 PLP 229 (PLC)

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus LAHORE OMNI BUS SERVICE THROUGH ITS DISTRICT MANGER

Jurisdiction / Court
1st Labour Court Punjab
Decided Date
Application No. 39 of 1975, decided on 27th September 1975.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1978 PLP 229 (PLC)
Forum / Court 1st Labour Court Punjab
Bench Members N/A
Parties KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus LAHORE OMNI BUS SERVICE THROUGH ITS DISTRICT MANGER
Primary Law (a) Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII 1969), (b) Industrial dispute
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 229 (PLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII 1969), (b) Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 229 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the 1st Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 229 (PLC) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus LAHORE OMNI BUS SERVICE THROUGH ITS DISTRICT MANGER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII 1969) (b) Industrial dispute

Representation

  • A. M. Qureshi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑ ReviewLabour Court, jurisdiction ofLabour Court does not possess power of review. ‑ Jurisdiction of Labour CourtLabour Court not competent to declare a law to be void on ground of being ultra vireo of Constitution or opposed to tenets of Islam.

Judgment & Decree

(a) Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII 1969)

‑‑ ReviewLabour Court, jurisdiction ofLabour Court does not possess power of review. (b) Industrial dispute

Jurisdiction of Labour CourtLabour Court not competent to declare a law to be void on ground of being ultra vireo of Constitution or opposed to tenets of Islam. A. M. Qureshi for Petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner under section 36‑D o: the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismiss by me In limine on 19th April 1971 on the ground that the same was barred by time and there was no justification for condoning the delay. The petitioner has filed the under considera tion application for the review of the aforesaid order. There is no provision of review in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and therefore this Court as statutory tribunal has no power of review. Moreover, a review is permissible even under the C. P. C. if there be any discovery of important and new facts or there is any error patent on the face of record or there', be any other such sufficient cause. No such eventuality is forthcoming from the present case. It is alleged in the present petition that the law, of limitation was void being volatile of the tenets of Islam. This is not within the competency of this Court to declare a law to be void on the around. that he same was ultra vires of the Constitution or that it was opposed to the tenets of Islam.

2. In this view of matter, it is concluded that the under consideration review petition is not legally competent and is accordingly dismissed in limine.