| Case ID |
2d261192-e91c-4e55-9618-aa83cafbd929 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Application No. 784 of 1974 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 24, 1975 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court rejected the application for rehearing the appeal, concluding that the applicant had been duly served notice of the appeal hearing. The presiding officer found that the applicant's claims regarding lack of service were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The appeal had been decided ex parte, which the court maintained was valid based on the records. The case highlighted issues of employee reinstatement in the context of union activities and the procedural requirements for appeals under the Civil Procedure Code. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the termination of Ikramul Haq, an employee of Asiatic Chemical Industries Ltd., who claimed that his dismissal was due to his union activities. The Junior Labour Court initially ruled in favor of reinstatement, citing the lack of a valid reason for his termination. However, the appeal was heard ex parte, and the decision was overturned. The presiding officer evaluated whether the applicant had been properly notified of the proceedings, ultimately concluding that he had been served. This ruling emphasizes the importance of proper notification in legal proceedings and the protections afforded to employees under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The case is significant for discussions on labor rights and procedural justice in employment disputes. |
| Court |
IIIrd Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
|
| Entities Involved |
Asiatic Chemical Industries Ltd.,
Ikramul Haq
|
| Judges |
Saeed Ahmad
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Zafar Rizvi,
Mian Abdul Latif
|
| Petitioners |
Ikramul Haq
|
| Respondents |
Messrs Asiatic Chemical Industries Ltd.
|
| Citations |
1976 SLD 955 = 1976 PLC 845
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969,
Civil Procedure Code, 1903
|
| Sections |
25-A,
O. XLI, r. 21
|