1988 PLP 967 (PLC(CS))
TARIQ MUNIR CHEEMA Versus DAWOOD YAMAHA LTD., LAHORE and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 967 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TARIQ MUNIR CHEEMA Versus DAWOOD YAMAHA LTD., LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 967 (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 1988 PLP 967 (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: 1988 PLP 967 (PLC(CS)) (TARIQ MUNIR CHEEMA Versus DAWOOD YAMAHA LTD., LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervez Inayat Malik for Appellant.
- M.S. Bokhari for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. I1‑‑Grievance petition can be rejected if it does not disclose cause of grievance‑‑ Petitioner challenging transfer order as mala fide‑‑Post and work allegedly existing at present station of posting‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, could not be brushed aside without affording opportunity to prove plea of mala fides‑‑ Order of Labour Court dismissing petition in limine set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Pervez Inayat Malik for Appellant. M.S. Bokhari for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1984. The decision dated 28‑1‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The services of the appellant had been previously terminated but he was reinstated under the direction of the Court. He was in compliance with the order reinstated, but was transferred to Karachi on the plea that there was no post at Lahore. The appellant challenged the order of his transfer as mala ride. The ground for the termination of his services was that the sale of spare parts had been closed at Lahore and started at Karachi. The case of the appellant was that his duty was in connection with the sale of motor cycles and not spare parts. The appellant had pleaded mala fides, so unless opportunity had been afforded to him by the learned lower Court, to prove his plea and he had fatidic to establish it, his petition could not be brushed aside. This was not a fit case to be dismissed in limine. Needless to say that only that petition can be rejected which does not disclose any cause of grievance such as plaints are rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Since the case of the appellant is that his post exists and that there is work for him at Lahore and with mala fide intention he has been transferred to Karachi, the petition does disclose a cause of grievance.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision on merits after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence of their own choice. A.E./1193/Lb. P. Appeal accepted.