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

versus


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 36 and 38 (3A) With the practice and procedure of the Labor Court discharging the signature of the Presiding Officer, such order of office is not retained, in the exercise of the amending powers The appellate tribunal has no obligation and rejects such order. Under Article 36 36 and (38 (a)) the practice and procedure of the Labor Court are not the signature of the Presiding Officer, which is not bound by the execution of such order of the Office. Later rejects such order and remands the case for judgment on merit

1984 P L C 1172

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

versus

REGIONAL MANAGER P. A. D. & S. CORPORATION

Petition No. LHR‑485 of 1979, heard on 4th May, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑ Ss. 36 & 38 (3‑a) ‑Practice and procedure ‑ Order of Labour Court not signed by Presiding Officer no longer holding that Ofiice -Such order, held, has no binding force ‑ Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revision powers setting aside such order and remanding case for decision on merit after opportunity of evidence to parties.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Petitioner.

Ismatullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 4th May, 1982.

JUDGMENT

This revision is directed against the order, dated 21st May. 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the case of the petitioner was closed.

2. The revision succeeds on the short ground that the impugned order does not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer. An order without signatures is no order and has no binding force. The learned Presiding Officer who was seized of the case at the time the impugned order was typed is not now holding the said Labour Court and thus is incapacitated to sign the order. The successor of the said Officer also is not competent to sign the order because at the time the order was recorded, he was the Presiding Officer of the Court and was not seized of the case. I, accordingly, accept the revision and setting aside the impugned order dated 21st May, 1979 send back the case with a direction that the petitioner be afforded opportunity to produce evidence and, there after the respondent be asked to produce evidence and the case be decide on merits.

A. E.

Revision accepted.

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
property advocates from Risalpur 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.