Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1719 2000 SLD 1719 2000 PLC 74
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D 43 of 1992, heard on 27-10-1999
RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND MUSHIR ALAM, JJ
Mahboob Malik for
Respondents

ABDUL RAZZAK

VS

CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, HYDERABAD and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 38(3 a) Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of Labour Appellate Tribunal, though was not entitled to upset the decision rendered by Labour Court for the reason that memo. of appeal was signed by employer's Advocate and not by any person duly authorised in that behalf, but said order could always be passed by Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which had broader scope and was not restricted by the conditions for the exercise of Appellate jurisdiction Labour Appellate Tribunal which had found that Labour Court had acted without jurisdiction, was not divested of its authority to correct the error of law by setting aside said order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199 Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, would not act in aid of injustice and to perpetuate a wrong Constitutional jurisdiction being extraordinary in its nature was to be exercised to foster the ends of justice and to right a wrong High Court was not bound to set aside every irregular or illegal order if it had not caused any material prejudice or gross miscarriage of justice. Water and Power Development Authority v. Javed Ahmed 1989 SCMR 1068; President of M.C.B. v. Muhammad Yakoob Chacher C.P. No. D 230 of 1991, decided on 8 5 1991 and National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another 1992 PLC 86 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199 Writ of certiorari or mandamus Object Order in the nature of a writ of certiorari or mandamus, was a discretionary order and its object was to foster justice and right a wrong Before a person could be permitted to invoke discretionary power of Court, it must be shown that the order sought to be set aside had occasioned some injustice to the party If it did not work any injustice to any party, rather it cured a manifest illegality, extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court ought not to be allowed to be invoked. Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236 and Muhammad Baran v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) PLD…
🔒
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