1999 PLP 480 (PLC)
MERAJ-UD-DIN Versus QAMUS GUL KHATAK
| Citation | 1999 PLP 480 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman |
| Parties | MERAJ-UD-DIN Versus QAMUS GUL KHATAK |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 480 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 480 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 480 (PLC) (MERAJ-UD-DIN Versus QAMUS GUL KHATAK). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masud-Ashraf Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Shafique Qureshi for Respondent.
- Masud‑Ashraf Sheikh for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 38(3-A), 54' & 55
Breach of settlement by employer
Complaint against- --Issuance of summons to employer
On filing complaint by General Secretary of workers' union under Ss. 54 & 55 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against employer (General Manager) for breach of settlement, Labour Court admitted complaint and issued summons to employer (General Manager)-- -Order of Labour Court whereby employer was summoned had been challenged by employer in revision petition
On filing complaint, Labour Court first ordered to record statement of complainant on oath and after recording said statement, Labour Court after applying its mind thought it to be a prima facie case for admission and registration of complaint against employer
Labour Court in circumstances had applied its mind while passing order impugned by employer in revision.
Judgment & Decree
"Admit. Register. Issue summons to the accused. Hearing on 6‑7‑1998. (Sd.) Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.` VI, Hyderabad." It is apparent from the copy of the order sheet filed by the applicant that a complaint dated 27‑5‑1998 was filed in the learned Sindh Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, under sections 54 and 55 of I.R.O., 1969 alleging breach of settlement dated 17‑1‑1998. The said complaint was presented in the office of .the Court on 29‑5‑1998. The Clerk of the Court submitted the same for orders alongwith office note signed by him. The learned Labour Court No VI,' Hyderabad, was pleased to order on the same day i.e. 29‑5‑1998. "Let the statement of the complainant be recorded on Oath." Thereafter, on 30‑5‑1998 the order reproduced above was passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad. It is against this order dated 30‑5‑1998 that this revision application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad did not apply his mind while passing the impugned order. I find no substance in the submission because on the earlier day the learned Presiding Officer had ordered the statement of the complainant to be recorded on Oath. It was only then, that after recording the statement of the complainant that he ordered "the case to be admitted and registered against the applicant". It is not necessary that he must have given reasons for admitting and registering the case. The learned Sindh Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad, after recording the statement of the complainant has applied his mind and thought it to be a prima facie case for admission and registration against the applicant. I, therefore, find no substance in the revision application. It seems to be simply delaying tactic. Let the law take its own course. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Order announced in open Court on 26th of March, 1999. H.B.T./252/K/Lab. (Trib.) Revision dismissed.