1991 PLP 514 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD FARID Versus MUHAMMAD SALEH alias CHAMAN and another
| Citation | 1991 PLP 514 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FARID Versus MUHAMMAD SALEH alias CHAMAN and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 514 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 514 (PLC)?
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 514 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD FARID Versus MUHAMMAD SALEH alias CHAMAN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Ashraf Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(8) & 38(5)‑‑Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.3‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Contempt for non‑implementation of orders of Tribunal‑‑‑Proper remedy was a complaint under S. 25‑A(8) and not an application under S. 38(5) read with S. 3 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(8) & 38(5)‑‑Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.3‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Contempt for non‑implementation of Tribunal's order‑‑‑Orders of Tribunal were implemented but it was contended by applicant that it had not been fully implemented or fully or partially implemented after period prescribed under S. 25‑A(8)‑‑‑Held, contempt of Court implied something more than mere non‑implementation of orders. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(8) & 38(5)‑‑Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.3‑‑ Application for contempt qua non‑implementation of Tribunal's orders‑‑ Reinstatement of applicant was ordered by Tribunal reversing order of Labour Court‑‑‑Complaint in case of contempt for non‑compliance of Tribunal's order, held, was to be filed by Registrar of Tribunal before Labour Court having jurisdiction as required under S. 25‑A(9)(b) and not by the applicant. M.L. Shahani for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
Ss. 25-A(8) & 38(5)--Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.3-- Application for contempt qua non-implementation of Tribunal's orders-- Reinstatement of applicant was ordered by Tribunal reversing order of Labour Court
Complaint in case of contempt for non-compliance of Tribunal's order, held, was to be filed by Registrar of Tribunal before Labour Court having jurisdiction as required under S. 25-A(9)(b) and not by the applicant. M.L. Shahani for Applicant. M. Ashraf Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1989. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani for the applicant and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the respondent. Applicant and contemner are also present in person. It appears prima facie that the order of this Tribunal was not implemented within a period specified under subsection (8) of section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. This subsection (8) itself provides the consequence of such non- implementation. Under the circumstances in my opinion the proper remedy available would be a complaint under subsection (8) and not an application under section 38(5)- read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The contempt of Court implies something more, than mere non-implementation of order. In this case the order has been implemented though it is contended by the applicant that it has not been fully implemented but it has been implemented fully or partially after the period prescribed under subsection (8). The grievance petition was originally dismissed by the learned Labour Court but in appeal the order of Labour Court was reversed by this Tribunal and the applicant was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits forthwith. Words "forthwith" are a little vague, which could mean as early as possible, but it could not be said to have fixed any specific time for the implementation of order. As such the complaint in this case in view of subsection (9)(a) cannot be filed by the applicant, but under clause (b) of the said subsection has to be filed by this Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, I dismiss this application of the applicant for the contempt of Court proceedings and direct the Registrar of this Tribunal to file complaint in writing before Labour Court having jurisdiction as required under section 25-A (9)(b) of the I.R.O., 1969. M.Y:H./1572/Lb.S Petition dismissed.