Pakistan Case Law← Search
1989 MLD 296

ASHFAQ AHMAD BAJWA vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Citation1989 MLD 296
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Miscellaneous No. 2295 of 1988 Writ Petition No. 120 of 1988
Date1988-06-21
Judge(s)Fazal-e-Mahmood
ResultCase remanded

ORDER

1. This application has been filed for the recall of the order of this Court dated 19-6-1988 m view of the fact that the legal position stood cleared by virtue of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad v. National Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 53). The only point raised by the learned counsel on the previous occasion was that the question of limitation should not be ignored in the process while following the dictum of the Supreme Court in remanding the case. It was observed by this Court that question of limitation could be agitated by the respondent and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal would decide it after hearing both the sides in accordance with law. The learned counsel supporting this application has tried to argue that the case has been decided by Punjab Labour Appellate Court vide its order dated 26-5-1986 on merits. I have confronted the learned counsel with a finding recorded in the impugned order by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on a Miscellaneous application for rehearing filed before it, wherein it has been observed:--- "Following 1985 PLC 1053 it was held by this Tribunal vide decision dated 26th May, 1986 that the Labour Court and this Tribunal had no jurisdiction."

2. I must add that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction nothing said by him in the course of the impugned order is worth the paper on which it is written as it is without jurisdiction`. In such circumstances I think it is going too far to suggest or to canvass that the decision has been rendered on merits.

3. Punjab Labour Appellate Court had fallen, into a patent legal error in view of the Supreme Court pronouncement and this Court in its light rightly remanded the case for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search