| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 386 1979 SLD 386 1979 PLD 788 |
Lahore High Court
W. P. No. 2273 of 1975, decided & hearing on 18-09-1975.
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner.
W. P. No. 2273 of 1975, decided & hearing on 18-09-1975.
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner.
LAHORE MILK BOARD, KOTLAKHPAT
VS
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 11, LAHORE AND ANOTHER
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 36D
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI11 of 1969) -- S. 36-D-Jurisdiction of appellate Court-Powers available to Junior Labour Court-Also available to appellate Court-Junior Labour Court while deciding cause having power to grant such relief as it may in circumstances of case think fit, similar power, held, extended, to appellate Court.-[Jurisdiction]. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 36-D - Ex parte order - Attachment of conditions-Ex parse order-Can be set aside on terms and conditions-Attachment of such conditions cannot be objected to. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE---.- The petitioner is aggrieved by a remand order in so far as it directs the continued reinstatement pending trial of the employee. 2. The services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated by the petitioner on 26-5-1973. A petition was field before the Junior Labour Court which was decided in favour of the respondent ex parte against the petitioner on 12-7-1975. The petitioner went up in appeal, obtained a stay against the re-instatement ordered by the Junior Labour Court but on the expiry of the statutory period prescribed under section 36-D the respondent had to be reinstated near about 17th August 1975. The appeal came to be decided on 4-9-1975 and the appellate Court while setting aside ex parse proceedings against the petitioner directed the retrial of the matter after notice and its the presence of both the parties. While so ordering the Court made the following additional directions "I am told that the respondent has been re-instated in compliance with the orders of the Junior Labour Court. Matter is pending since 1973 and for these reasons he would remain re-instated during the course of trial and question of back wages would depend upon the result of the case." It is this portion of the order which has offended the petitioner and amounts for this petition. 3. The argument made is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that there is no power conferred specifically on the Appellate Court to pass such an order of re-instatement while the anther itself is pending for trial in the Junior Labour Court and is awaiting its decision, the previous…
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