Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Petition No. 32 of 1971, decided on 26th July 1971.
S. 47 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stand ing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 18‑Complaint under S. O. 18, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Not an industrial dispute Permission of Court under S. 47, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, pending disposal of such complaint, held, not required.
At the time the petitioner was called upon to argue his petition, he stated that he did not want to produce any counsel for himself nor did be himself want to argue his petition and thereafter he left the Court. Arguments of the representative of the respondent were heard.
This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 by the petitioner that he was dismissed on 28‑1‑1971 when his case No. 155/70 was pending in Court. He challenges the order of his dismissal on the ground that during the pendency of the Petition No. 155/70, his dismissal was illegal as permission of the Labour Court was not obtained under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. No other ground to challenge the validity of the older of dismissal has been urged in the petition.
A perusal of Petition No. 155/70 shows that it was a complaint under Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan :Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance of 1968 which cannot by any imagination be said to be an industrial dispute for the purposes of section 47 of the I. R. O. pending in this Court. As such, permission of the Court was not necessary under section 47 of the I. R. O. for the dismissal of the petitioner.
Moreover, Petition No. 155/70 was dismissed on 30‑12‑70 and the order of dismissal was passed on 28‑1‑1971, Even if Petition No. 155/70 can be said to he an industrial dispute pending in this Court even then the same was decided before the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. Under these circumstances also, no permission of the Court was required for the order of dismissal.
In view of what has been said above, the present petition is wholly misconceived. It is dismissed as unsustainable. Costs on the parties.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer