| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 1064 1984 SLD 1064 1984 PLC 173 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. RI-138 of 1983, decided on 13th September, 1983.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI,
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. RI-138 of 1983, decided on 13th September, 1983.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI,
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN
VS
ATTOCK REFINERY LTD.
Law:
Section:
(a) Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (Lill of 1952)- ---- S. 7 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-Employment covered by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952-Remedy against termination of service Jurisdiction of Labour Court barred. P L D 1982 S C 113 rel. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- --- S. O. 13-Retrenchment--Services terminated for being surplus None appointed thereafter-.Merely writing in termination order that permanent arrangement had been made-Not sufficient to hold termination as illegal. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant. Naeem Sultan Butt and Muhammad Azam for Respondent. Date of hearing : 5th September, 1983. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 17th February, 1983 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed. On behalf of respondent cross-objections have been filed, which are being decided alongwith the appeal. 2. The appellant was previously dismissed from service for absence for more than ten days. He was directed by the learned lower Court to be re-instated in service. He was, thereafter, terminated from service as superfluous. The learned lower Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts is barred by virtue of Essential Services Maintenance Act. On merits it has been held that the order of termination is not legal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Supreme Court's ruling P L D 1982 S C 113 has been misinterpreted. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Supreme Court has not said that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. The argument has no force. The case was for…
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