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. LHR 362 of 1985, decided on 21st October, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Revision‑‑Remarks by Labour Court against an office bearer of C.B.A. sought to be expunged‑‑Revision Petition by person other than one against whom such remarks made, held, misconceived and dismissed in limine.
Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 15th October, 1985.
The order dated 6‑7‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad is reported to be of no legal effect to the extent of the observations made by the learned lower Court to the effect that Mr. Abdul Shakoor Dar seemed to have arrogated to himself the authority which did not vest in him, that he had no authority to negotiate any dispute with the respondent and that he needed to be proceeded against in accordance with law.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Mr. Abdul Shakoor was not party to the case in which the above remarks were made by the learned lower Court and had no opportunity of hearing, such remarks are not sustainable. So far as the question is concerned if the petitioner had authority to negotiate the learned counsel has brought the copy of the Constitution of the C.B.A. but has not been able to point out any provision whereby the C.B.A. may have given such an authority to Mr. Abdul Shakoor. So far as factual position is concerned, it is not contended in the revision that Mr. Abdul Shakoor did not actually negotiate with the respondent.
3. The other damaging thing fob the petitioner, so far as this revision is concerned, is that the revision has been brought by the Regional Union through Mr. Muhammad Hanif Saeen against whom no remarks have been passed by the learned lower Court. The remarks are against Mr. Abdul Shakoor who was petitioner before the learned lower Court and thus had the opportunity of hearing. Since no remarks have been passed against Mr. Muhammad Hanif Saeen, he cannot ask for the expunction of any remarks. If there was any cause to ask for expunction of remarks, it was for Mr. Abdul Shakoor but the revision is not by him.
4. As a result, the revision being misconceived is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer