Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1566 1985 SLD 1566 1985 PLC 106
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-311 of 1980, decided on 13th June, 1982.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

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

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

VS

PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE and 3 others

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations' Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.1(f)--Question whether Medical Colleges fail within exceptions enumerated in clause (f) or come within definition of industrial or commercial establishments--Labour Court returned petition for want Of jurisdiction on first preliminary objection holding that Medical Colleges are excluded from purview of Ordinance, 1969--Tribunal setting aside order and remanded case for deciding on merits on remaining preliminary objections. M. Akhtar Chughtai for Appellant. Farooq Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Qamar Riaz Hussain for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Date of hearing: 1st June, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from-the decision dated 16-3-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby he holding that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, returned the petition for presentation to the proper forum. The learned lower Court decided the preliminary objection only. The preliminary objection reads as under:- "This Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition because a separate Tribunal has been set up under law to entertain and adjudicate upon such matters." No reason has been given for which according to the respondent, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is barred. Even the name of the Tribunal, which, according to the respondents, is competent to hear this case, has not been disclosed. In reality during the pendency of the grievance petition section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was amended in 1979 and clause (f) was added to it which reads as under:- "by an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons." 2. It was argued before the lower Court on behalf of the respondent that the King Eward Medical College wlis covered by clause (f) whereas on behalf of the appellant it was argued before the lower Court that the King Edward Medical College was not a hospital, but a Medical College and thus was not covered by the newly-added clause. The observations made by the lower Court on the point read as under:- "The function of the Medical College is to produce medical practitioners…
🔒
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