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

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN MALIK versus LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD


The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 38 (3A) is not a legal right of the parties to review. Only one can inform the Tribunal that the Labor Court has passed a false or illegal order, such information given eight years later. Cannot simply be entertained and modified. Will suffer in the lakes

1984 P L C 594

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN MALIK

versus

LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD., RAHIM YAR KHAN

Revision Petition No. RYK‑29 of 1984, decided on 28th February, 1984.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Not a statutory right of parties‑One can only inform Tribunal that Labour Court subordinate to it has passed a wrong or illegal order‑Such information given after eight years, held, can hardly be entertained and revision would be suffer ing from laches.

Petitioner in person.

Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1984.

ORDER

The order dated 17th February, 1976 has been challenged in this revision, whereby the grievance petition of the petitioner for his reinstatement. in service was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was Engineering Store Keeper. Before bringing the petition for reinstatement under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he had challenged the order of his termination before the N.I.R.C. but the same was dismissed on the ground that he was a workman. He had brought petition under section 34 contending that he was an employer. The mere fact that the petitioner was an office‑holder of the association of employers is not sufficient to show that he was an employer. He has failed to cite any law that may have guaranteed any right to him for the infringe ment of which he could have invoke the provisions of section 34. Before the learned lower Court he tried to take shelter of Standing Order 12 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but it is applicable to the workers, whereas the petitioner claims in his petition that he was an employer. So he had failed to show that any right guarantee to him by law has been infringed.

3. The other thing is that the present revision suffers from "aches. Revision is not a statutory right but one can only inform this Tribunal that the Labour Court subordinate to it has passed a wrong or illegal order. Such an information given after eight long years can hardly be entertained.

4. As a result, the revision is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

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
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Buchay Key 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.