2006 PLP 630 (SCMR)
Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 630 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 630 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 630 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 630 (SCMR) (Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abrar Hussain Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order, dated 26-1-2004 passed by High Court of Sindh Karachi in C.P. No. D-1124 of 1997).
Ss. 37(3) & 38
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Question was whether respondents were employees of the employer or the contractor
Labour Appellate Tribunal, on the basis of material available on record had concluded that respondents were employees of the employer
Such findings of fact had been confirmed by High Court who had undertaken the exercise to go through relevant provisions of law as well as evidence produced by the parties
Since both Courts had found that the respondents were employees of the employer and that contractor was not their employer; impugned judgment being unexceptionable would admit of no interference by Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.185(3) of the Constitution
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Listed petitions have been filed against the judgment, dated 26th January, 2004 passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby constitution petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 10th April, 1997 has been maintained.
2. In the instant case precise question for consideration before the High Court was whether the respondents are employees of the petitioner or the Contractor (respondent No.4)? The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on the basis of material available on record has concluded that the respondents are employees of the petitioner. Such findings of fact have been confirmed by High Court who had undertaken the exercise to go through the relevant provisions of law as well as the evidence produced by the parties. Since both the Courts have held that the private respondents are employees of the petitioner and as far as Contractor (respondent No.4) is concerned he is not their employer. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that impugned judgment being unexceptionable admits of no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in these petitions as such the same are dismissed and leave declined. H.B.T./D-4/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.