1986 PLP 2124 (MLD)
CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2124 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2124 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2124 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2124 (MLD) (CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Masud for Petitioner.
- Ijaz Anwaf for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 37‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal on appeal against order of Labour Court, after deciding preliminary issue whether respondent was workman or not, remanded case to Labour Court for adjudication on merits‑‑Matter having not been finally decided by Appellate Tribunal as other questions were still open for determination by Labour Court and if necessary by Labour Appellate Tribunal, there was, held, no justification at that stage for interference of High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Petitioner, however, could raise any plea in fresh constitutional petition in case orders of Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal were against him.
Judgment & Decree
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 37‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal on appeal against order of Labour Court, after deciding preliminary issue whether respondent was workman or not, remanded case to Labour Court for adjudication on merits‑‑Matter having not been finally decided by Appellate Tribunal as other questions were still open for determination by Labour Court and if necessary by Labour Appellate Tribunal, there was, held, no justification at that stage for interference of High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Petitioner, however, could raise any plea in fresh constitutional petition in case orders of Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal were against him. S.M. Masud for Petitioner. Ijaz Anwaf for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1986. The, services of Muhammad Ramzan who was then working as a Shift Incharge were terminated as no longer required by the Crescent Jute Products Ltd., on 14th January, 1980. He challenged the termination of his service before the Punjab Labour Court No.4 but his petition was dismissed on 8th May, 1980. His appeal, before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was dismissed on 17th January, 1981 but the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal observed that he could re-agitate the matter after giving a grievance notice to the employer. Muhammad Ramzan then gave a grievance notice to the employer on 18th January, 1981 and later moved a petition afresh in the Labour Court. His petition was dismissed on 1st February, 1982 on the ground that he was not a workman. In appeal this finding has been set aside by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its order, dated 27th June, 1983 and matter has been remanded to the Labour Court for adjudication on merits. The order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is now being assailed in the present writ petition.
2. It is evident that the matter has not yet been finally determined except for the question whether the respondent was a workman or not. Since the other questions are still open for determination by the Labour Court, and, if necessary, in appeal, by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, there is no justification for interference in the proceedings at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed an anxiety regarding an opportunity of challenging the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 27th June, 1983 again in writ petition, if need arises, but he need not be anxious as it will be open to him to raise this plea or any other plea in a fresh writ petition if the orders of the Labour Court or of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal go against him and he is advised to challenge them in a fresh writ petition. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. H . B . T . Petition dismissed /Order accordingly.