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.
Writ Petition No. 1230 of 1981, decided on 13th February, 1982.
‑‑ Art. 9 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (8)‑Constitutional remedy‑Mere filing of appeal‑‑Not a con duct disentitling an aggrieved person from seeking constitutional remedy where adequacy of remedy becomes doubtful during pen dency of appeal‑Appeal pending before Labour Appellate Tribunal against order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement to workman (respondent)‑Tribunal's interim order suspending opera tion of order of Labour Court effective only for 20 days in view of subsection (8) of S. 38 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Petitioner (appellant before Labour Appellate Tribunal) during pendency of his appeal invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court‑‑ Respondent raising preliminary objection to maintainability of writ petition in view of pendency of appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑ Objection repelled‑.High Court taking view, that it will not be appropriate that proceedings should continue simultaneously in both forums‑With consent of a counsel of parties High Court directing that stay order against operation of order of Labour Court earlier granted by High Court on writ petition shall stand confirmed but appeal shall be decided by Appellate Tribunal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously.
Mumtaz Hussain alias Bhutta v. Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore 1976 S C M R 450 ref.
Pakistan Cycle Industries Co‑operative Society v. Muhammad Sarwar Writ Petition No. 5990 of 1981 (unreported) ref.
Pakistan National Council of Arts Islamabad v. The Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and others Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1976 (un reported) rel.
Saleem Beg for Petitioner.
Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing : 13th February, 1982.
The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the competency of the writ petition on the ground that an interim relief under section 38 (8) .of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, cannot extend beyond 20 days and, therefore, the dis cretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in aid of justice and to defeat the express provisions of statutory law. Reliance has been placed on Mrirptaz Hussain alias Bhut ta v. Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab. Lahore (1976 S C M R 450) and an unreported judgment in Pakistan Cycle In dustries Co‑operative Society v. Muhammad Sarwar (Writ Petition No. 5990 of 1981), decided on 18th January, 1982 by my learned brother Saad Saood Jan, J.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in rebuttal that the writ petition is competent notwithstanding the pendency of appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Reliance is placed on an unreported judgment in Pakistan National Council of Arts. Islamabad v. The Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and others (Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1976), decided on 10th September, 1976 by my learned brother Shafi ur Rehman, J. (as he then was). The learned Judge, after extensively dealing with the case‑law, held in the precedent case that the mere filing of an appeal is not a conduct disentitling an aggrieved person from seeking Constitutional remedy where the adequacy of the remedy became doubtful during the pendency of appeal.
3. Be that as it may, since the appeal is pending before the learned Appellate Tribunal on the same subject‑matter, it will not be appropriate that proceedings should simultaneously continue in both the forums.
4. In this background, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the stay order earlier granted is confirmed with the result that during the pendency of appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, the operation of the order of the Labour Court shall remain suspended but the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the parties shall make a joint application to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
5. Respondent No. 2 was re‑instated in service by the order of the Labour Court, dated 25th of January, 1981 which stands suspended till today. It is, therefore, expected by the Court that the learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, shall finally dispose of the appeal of the petitioner by the end of March, 1982, if possible.
6. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be also communicated to the learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
A. t. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer