Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 362 1979 SLD 362 1979 PLD 640
Sindh High Court
Revision Application No. 264 of 1978, decided on 2nd December, 1978. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1978.
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J
S. A. Sarwana for Applicant. M. A. Latif for
Respondents.

PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION AND 5 others --Applicants

VS

MUHAMMAD IZHARUL AHSAN QURESHI --Respondents Burma Eastern Ltd. v. Burma Eastern Employees€™ Union PLD 1967 Dacca 190 ref.

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25 A Remedy against apprehended wrongful dismissal Jurisdiction Not open to employee to stop employer from holding a departmental inquiry into his misconduct nor could employee asked for his re instatement against an order of suspension duly passed by employer under rules of service ---Remedy of worker against apprehended wrongful dismissal Lies under S. 25 A of Ordinance XXIII of 1969 Special jurisdiction having been conferred for such purpose on Labour Courts, civil Courts, held, could not adjudicate on such matters. [Jurisdiction]. Abul A'la Maudoodi v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 S C 673: Mushtaque Hussain Shah v. Riaz Muhammad Hazarvl PLD 1978 Kar. 612; and P L J 1976 Kar. 278 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S. 42 Declaratory suit---Legal character or status---Denotes character or status conferred by law and not one created by contract Rights and liabilities under contracts of service Held, cannot form subject matter of a declaratory suit. JUDGMENT This revision application arises from a judgment passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Karachi in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction whereby the earlier decision of Civil Judge, 2nd Class, Karachi was set aside. 2. The facts in brief are that plaintiff/respondent Muhammad 1zharul Haq Qureshi filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge, 2nd Class against the petitioner P. I. A. Corporation for declaration and in, unction that he could not be suspended from service on the ground of any misconduct nor could a departmental enquiry he held against him for such misconduct and he should be allowed to resume his duties. That a mandatory injunction be issued to the P. I. A. C. not to implicate the plaintiff/respondent on false and frivolous allegations because the plaintiff/respondent had 10 years record of service to his credit. Learned Civil Judge while deciding interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, rules l and 2, C. P. C. and also an application under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. found that the defendant P. I. A. C. had followed the proper procedure under the Service Code and they bad the full authority to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492