Pakistan Case Law← Search
1975 PLC 108

EMPLOYEES UNION And Other vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,

Citation1975 PLC 108
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeals Nos. KAR-703, 705, 716, 719, 722, 754, 761, 789, 815, 820 to 823, 826,
Date1974-03-28
Judge(s)Inamullah Khan
ResultWrit Petition No. 599 of 1973

DECISION I propose to dispose of these appeals by a common order, in view of the decision of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan in , Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Pakistan Paper Products Limited, in which it has been held that an order under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), is not an award and, therefore, no appeal lies. All these appeals are against orders under section 34 of the Ordinance. I, therefore, dismiss them as no appeals lies.

2. It may be noted that in Appeals Nos.

KAR-703/73, KAR-722/73, KAR-826/73, KAR-830/73, KAR-855/73, KAR-950/73, KAR-951/73, KAR-72/74, KAR-53/74, and KAR-85/74, there is an additional ground also for dismissal on the ground of non- prosecution; the appellants are absent, in spite of service. After I had passed the above order, Mr. Ijaz Rizvi, for the appellant in Appeal No. KAR-8/3/73, appeared and stated that the application of the respondent was not only under section 34 of the Ordinance, but it was also under section 25-A of the Ordinance and, therefore, an appeal lies. The admitted position is that the application is in both the sections. A decision under section 25-A of the Ordinance is an award. Therefore, an appeal lies. In these circumstances, I withdraw my order of dismissal in Appeal No. KAR-873/73. The appeal, I am told, is fixed for 30th April 1974. It is too long a date. I will pre-date it and fix 12th April 1974, for final decision. The learned Advocates accept this date.

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