Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

WALI AHMAD versus MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD., CHITAGONG


Review of Industrial Disputes The Labor Court's decision held that the court should have benefited from the suspension and that its decision on dismissal was the wrong court, however, no significant matter or evidence has been discovered before nor has anyone been. The error or error recorded on the face of the record is apparently requested, in the circumstances, misunderstood and therefore the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) was rejected, and XLVII, r 1

1971 P L C 111

[Labour Court East Pakistani

Present: Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members

WALI AHMAD

Versus

MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD., CHITAGONG

Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1970, decided on. 10th July 1970.

Industrial dispute‑‑Review Judgment of Labour Court assailed on ground that Court should have given termination benefits and its decision regarding dismissal was erroneous ‑ Court, however, found to have reached its conclusion on materials before it‑No dis covery of important matter or evidence nor any error or mistake apparent. on face of record pointed out‑Review application, in circumstances, held, misconceived and hence rejected-Civil Proce dure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1.

ORDER

MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN)

. This misc, case arises out of an application, tinder Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C. P. C. for review of a contested judgment of this Court. Opposite‑party opposes the application.

On a perusal of review application, it appears that the judgment of the Court has been assailed on several grounds. It is said that the Court should have given termination benefits, Court, however, held on materials before it that this is not a case of termination simpliciter, but dismissal in effect. It is ass sought to be said that dismissal, if any wag not proper and Court' findings to that effect is erroneous. It is also said that the Court travelled beyond the scope of the case. Be that as it may these are no grounds for, review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C. P. C. Review is entertained on two well‑defined settled grounds, discovery of important matter or evidence, or any error or mistake apparent on the face of this record.

I have scanned the judgment and the review petition and I say that there is no material for review of the judgment. The application is quite misconceived. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any findings of the judgment, his remedy is elsewhere. The learned members also agree with me. So

ORDERED

That the misc. case be dismissed on contest. Considering circumstances I direct Ithe parties to bear their respective cost of the case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Rahimyar Khan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.