Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision No. SL‑344 of 1985/Pb., decided on 9th October, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Revision‑‑Scope‑‑Order which cannot be vacated by authority passing it only can be challenged in revision‑‑Ad interim order not yet gaining finality‑‑Vacation of such order within jurisdiction and competence of Labour Court‑‑Not open to revision before appellate Tribunal.
Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 5thOctober, 1985.
The order, dated 2‑4‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the operation of the order, dated 26‑3‑1985 was suspended, is reported to be of no legal effect. Vide order, dated 26‑3‑1985 the grievance petition of the petitioner was accepted ex parte and he was directed to be re‑instated in service. The respondents made an application for setting aside the ex parte decision, dated 26‑3‑1985. The impugned order, dated 2‑4‑1985 was ad interim and not final as the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner instead of coming to this Court should have asked the learned lower Court to vacate the same. It is argued that the learned Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is on special duty and thus is not functioning at Multan, but this is no ground for challenging an order which has not yet gained finality. Needless to say that only that order can be challenged in revision which cannot be vacated by the authority passing it.
2. As a result, the revision having no force is dismissed in limine, but Court No. 8, Bahawalpur is authorised to dispose of any application for vacation of order, dated 2‑4‑1985 if the petitioner happens to move for it.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer