Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2412 1986 SLD 2412 1986 PLC 1057
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos. 144, 151, CA-177, 157 and 158 of 1986, decided on 16th May, 1986.
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

WAPDA through Director (Legal), Lahore

VS

ANWAR MAHMOOD

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ---S. 25-A--WAPDA employee seeking interim stay order against suspension order, already implemented--Impugned order having become final, held, was not within jurisdiction of Labour Court but within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. 1985 S C M R 63 rel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---S. 37(3)--Appeal to be brought by "party aggrieved" i.e. against whom impugned decision passed by Labour Court--WAPDA was sued before Labour Court through particular officer but appeal filed not through that officer but through Director Legal--Advocate signing memo, of appeal not authorised to sign pleadings in Power of Attorney--Appeal, in circumstances, held, improperly instituted. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ---S. 25-A--Limitation for bringing appeal already expired, defect in presentation and institution, held, could not be cured by presence of officer through whom WAPDA sued before Labour Court hence appeal dismissed. Ch. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan for Appellant. Mian Mahmood Hussain for Respondent Date of hearing: 29th April, 1986. JUDGMENT The five appeals captioned above arise from the judgment, dated 29-1-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents for setting aside the orders of suspension were accepted and they were directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. 2. The impugned decisions have been challenged on the ground that not the Labour Court but Service Tribunal has jurisdiction. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the, appellant that in cases where the orders of suspension have taken effect, they have become final and thus the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction. He has cited 1985 S C M R 63. The suspension orders had taken effect in all the cases except the case of Syed Zakir Hussain and this the orders have become final and the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction. So far as the case of Zakir Hussain is concerned, the order was passed on 16-4-1985 and before it could be given effect to and the 'said respondent could be brought actually under…
🔒
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