Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 818 2005 SLD 818 2005 PLC 112
Sindh High Court
C. P. D. No.373 of 2000, decision dated: 8-11-2002.
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND GHULAM RABBANI, 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

TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI

VS

MEMBER NIRC and others

Law:

Section:

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-------Ss.2-A, 3(2), 4 & 5---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.22-A(8)(g)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Retirement---Age of employee---Determination---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Civil servant would not be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal by adding/raising a ground of violation of fundamental rights in Constitutional petition---If Service Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction could deal with the issue of violation of fundamental rights, then it could certainly deal with the issue of unfair labour practice while proceeding with an appeal of a civil servant against violation of his terms and conditions of service---National Industrial Relations Commission, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, would not have jurisdiction to decide question of date of birth and date of retirement of employee who was a civil servant, as such question of retirement was to be decided solely by the Service Tribunal. I.A Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041 ref. Qamar Abbas for Petitioner. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2002. JUDGMENT SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.---In this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought the following relies: "Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned order of respondent No.1 as without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and set aside the same." The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 5-10-1999 of respondent No.1, whereby while allowing withdrawal of the application of respondent No.2 under sections 22-A(8)(g) and 32(2) of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as I.R.O) respondent No. 1. made observation that respondent No.2 would retire on 4-10-1999 on attaining the age of 60 years which date of retirement was not acceptable to the petitioner. Brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent No.2 was employed by the petitioner as Traffic Inspector Grade-II. In 1996, he asked for change of the date of…
🔒
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