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. FD-314 of 1986, decided on 4th June, 1986.
---Ss. 25-A, 36 & 38(3-a)--Practice and procedure--Jurisdiction of Labour Court disputed and matter pending decision in Supreme Court- Labour Court adjourning case sine die--Order of Labour Court, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity necessitating exercise of suo motu powers of revision.
Irshad Ali Mian for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 1st June, 1986.
The order, dated 13-4-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The learned lower Court vide order, dated 15-9-1985 had adjourned the case sine die awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on the point whether the Labour Courts have jurisdiction. The petitioner made a miscellaneous application for the decision of the case one way or the other. The said application has been disallowed by the impugned
order.
3. It had been argued before the learned lower Court and the same point has been raised before me that since this tribunal has recorded finding on the question of jurisdiction, the learned lower Court should have passed some kind of orders. The cases were piling up in this Court, so I declined to adjourn such cases sine die. If the learned lower Court has little number of cases, it was quite justified in adjourning the cases sine die. The order does not suffer from any 1B legal infirmity for which exercise of suo motu powers of revision may be considered necessary.
4. As a result, the revision fails and 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