| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 1141 1984 SLD 1141 1984 PLC 401 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 248 of 1980-BWP, decided on 28th May, 1980.
A. RAHMAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 248 of 1980-BWP, decided on 28th May, 1980.
A. RAHMAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
QADEER AHMAD
VS
PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Industrial dispute--- ----Domestic enquiry-Fresh enquiry-High Court in constitutional jurisdiction setting aside dismissal order on technical grounds in that enquiry did not conform with requirements of law-Employer not precluded from taking fresh action in accordance with law Fresh enquiry by employer, in circumstances, held, unassailable Petition by employee under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging initiation of fresh enquiry dismissed by High Court Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) S. O. 15 (4). Khurshid Alam v. Bata Shoe Company Pakistan Ltd. 1974 P L C 6 and Riaz Ahmed Shahid v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1980 P L C 459 d1stinguished. S. Iqbaluddin for Petitioner. Naeem Bukhari for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing : 24th May, 1980. JUDGMENT Qadir Ahmad petitioner has filed the present petition under section 151, C. P. C. against Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd. who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 by the petitioner in his writ petition which was decided in his favour on 25th February, 1980. The petitioner had filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging orders, dated 1st October, 1975 and 17th February, 1976 whereby his services were terminated by respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner has contended that respondent No. 2 has deliberately misconstrued the order of this Court by which his writ petition was allowed and orders, dated 1st October, 1975 and 17th February, 1976 were declared to be without lawful authority because respondent No. 2 has not re-instated him from the date when he was dismissed from service and has refused to pay him back benefits to which he is legally entitled. Respondent No. 2 on the other hands, has instituted fresh inquiry against him, has also suspended him without allowing him to resume his duty. The petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to implement order, dated 25th February, 1980 passed by this Court and that proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act be also taken against respondent No. 2 for disobeying the…
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