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

TARIQ HAMEED versus INAMULLAH HASHMI


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 38 (5) and 51 Complaint against Defendants for failure to comply with court orders. Determined to take advantage of leave before being approved by a competent authority
1985 P L C 51

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

TARIQ HAMEED

Versus

INAMULLAH HASHMI and another

Petition No. FD-184 of 1982, decided on 6th June, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----

---Ss.38 (5) & 51--Complaint against respondents on failure to carry out Court's orders--Complainant availed of leave before being sanctioned by competent authority--Contentions made before Tribunal not so mentioned in complaint--No contempt, held, appeared to have been committed.

Petitioner in person.

Date of hearing: 28th June, 1982.

ORDER

This application has been made under section 51 read with section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for taking action against the respondents for the non-implementation of the order of Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad dated 15-7-1981, the appeal against which is pending in this Tribunal. The explanation of the petitioner was called for remaining absent without leave on 3-3-1982 and coming late on 4-3-1982 serving upon him second show-cause notice. In the complaint it has been complained that even though the instructions were issued by this court on 25-11-1981 for granting due leave and releasing current increments, the respondents have failed to carry out the orders, inasmuch as leave has not been granted and bonus has not been paid. The petitioner has said that he made an application for leave and was told that the leave would be sanctioned, therefore, he availed of it but it was not sanctioned. In the complaint it is not mentioned so. Always the leave is availed of after it has been sanctioned. This is not the allegation that the leave was refused. So far as the bonus is concerned, firstly there is no mention in the complaint that the bonus has not been paid and secondly this is not the case of the petitioner that he had made application for the payment of bonus and that the same had been refused. It appears that since an action is being taken against the petitioner, he has made the complaint, otherwise no contempt appears to have been committed. The complaint, therefore, is filed.

M. I.

Order accordingly.

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
top civil advocates from Ghizer 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.