Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 1150 1988 SLD 1150 1988 PLC 544
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Petition No. MN-663 of 1986, decided on 28th February, 1987.
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

DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MULTAN

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.38(5)--Complaint--Stay order passed by Labour Court allegedly violated--Stay order whether brought to-notice of authority complained against not proved--Violation of stay order, held, was not established--Complaint, in circumstances, dismissed. Maqbool Anees for Petitioner. Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gillani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987. JUDGMENT This is a complaint brought under section 38(5) 1.4.0. 1968, complaining that the stay order dated 20-7-1986 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.9 Multan, has been violated by terminating the services of the petitioner. The stay order was to the effect "his services should not be terminated till the date fixed". The date fixed was 2-8-86. The case of the petitioner is that the stay order was got diaried in the office of the respondent on the same date i.e. 20-7-1986 and Shah Wali, Accounts Clerk, had orally informed the respondent about the said order and whereupon the respondent replied" how a stay order could be issued. "The petitioner did not corroborate the statement of Shah Wall by stating that the latter had gone to the respondent. This is true that according to the statement of Shah Wali he alone had gone to the respondent but the petitioner should have corroborated him by stating that he had gone to the office of the respondent, if the deposition of Shah Wali had been correct. Rather if in reality the respondent had been informed about the stay order on the same date as deposed by Shah Wali, the petitioner to whom the stay order concerned would have accompanied Shah Wali to the respondent. The respondent has in his statement denied the fact that Shah Wali had come to him. If the respondent was present in the office the proper thing which normally was to be done was to get the stay order placed before him after it was diaried. So it…
πŸ”’
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