Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAQSOOD AHMAD VS Respondent: NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN JHANG
1988 P L C 462
1988 P L C 462
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MAQSOOD AHMAD and 5 others
Versus
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN JHANG and others
Appeals Nos. FD‑46 to 50 of 1986, decided on 19th May, 1986.
Constitution of Pakistan, (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38‑‑Decisions of Labour Courts and Appellate Tribunal in Punjab subject to writ jurisdiction of Lahore High Court‑‑Rulings of Lahore High Court, held, are to be followed even if views of Appellate Tribunal are different.
M.A. Javed for Appellants. Iqbal Muhammad Appellant in person (in Appeal No. 44 of 1986). Abdul Rab for Respondent (in Appeals Nos. 48 and 44 of 1986). Irshadullah Chattha for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th May, 1986.
JUDGMENT
The six appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 18‑12‑1985, 14‑12‑1985, 14‑12‑1985, 14‑12‑1985, 14‑12‑1985 and 14‑12‑1985, respectively, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were returned for lack of jurisdiction relying upon 1985 P L C 1053 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases.
2. The learned lower Court has rightly relied upon the ruling cited above, inasmuch as the orders and decisions of the Labour Court and of this Tribunal are subject to writ jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, therefore, the rulings of the said Court are to be followed even if the personal view of this Tribunal may be different. The High Court has in the above cited ruling held that the bank employees who have been removed from service cease to remain workmen and that the Wage Commission Award not being an award as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 cannot be enforced through Labour Courts. The question no doubt is subjudice before the Supreme Court, but unless the abovementioned ruling is set aside, it is to be followed.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeals are dismissed, but it is directed that if the Supreme Court finds that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction, the appellants would be entitled to get their grievance petitions decided from the learned lower Court on merits. A. E. /110/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.