1991 PLP 741 (PLC(CS))
AOUEELUZZAMAN KHAN Versus Messrs DAILY MASHRIO and 3 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 741 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AOUEELUZZAMAN KHAN Versus Messrs DAILY MASHRIO and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 741 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 741 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 741 (PLC(CS)) (AOUEELUZZAMAN KHAN Versus Messrs DAILY MASHRIO and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1990.
- 2. 1 have heard Mr. Rafiq Malik, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A(8) & 25‑A(9)‑‑‑Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976S. 3‑‑ Contempt‑‑‑Non‑compliance of order of Tribunal punishable‑‑‑Complaint qua non‑compliance filed with Labour Court was dismissed on ground that no notice was served of compliance upon contemner/respondent ‑‑‑Sufficient notice was given to contemner/respondent in shape of complaint filed in Labour Court as well as in contempt proceedings before the Tribunal‑‑‑Circumstances of case calling for recording of evidence to find out why orders were not complied with‑‑ Proper course, held, was to file complaint under S. 25‑A(8), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 with Labour Court‑‑‑Registrar of the Tribunal was directed to act accordingly. Rafiq Malik for Applicant. Respondent No. 3 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar for Respondents. Respondent No. 3 in person. Date of hearing: 16th December, 1990. Admittedly the order of this Tribunal dated 24-4-1988 has not been complied with. It is submitted by Mr. Latif Saghar, that there are certain difficulties as financial conditions of the respondents are in dire straits. Be that as it may, it would not absolve the respondents from compliance of the order of this Tribunal. 2. 1 have heard Mr. Rafiq Malik, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record of the case.
3. The non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal is also punishable under section 25-A(8) of the I.R.O., 1969. Mr. Rafiq Malik informs that such complaint was filed before the learned Labour Court but was dismissed on the ground, that the complaint was not filed by the Tribunal as required under section 25-A(9) of the I.R.O., 1969 and because no notice of the compliance wan served upon the contemner/respondent. So far notice of compliance is concerned, I need not go into the question whether such notice was necessary. However sufficient notice has now been given to the contemners/respondents in shape of the complaint in the learned Labour Court, as well as in the contempt proceedings in this Tribunal. However the complaint could not have been filed directly by the applicant before the Labour Court but had to be filed by this Tribunal, as no period for compliance was specified in the order. The circumstances of this case require recording of evidence to find out why order was not complied with. Proper course would be to rile complaint in the Labour Court under section 25-A(8) of I.R.O., 1969. The Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to file such complaint within 15 days. The contempt application is disposed of in the above terms. M.Y.H./1814/Lb. S Order accordingly.