1981 PLP 891 (PLC(CS))
SAID AKBAR Versus MESSERS NAZIM SILK MILLS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1981 PLP 891 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SAID AKBAR Versus MESSERS NAZIM SILK MILLS, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 891 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 891 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 891 (PLC(CS)) (SAID AKBAR Versus MESSERS NAZIM SILK MILLS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 38(3‑a)‑Revision‑‑Suo motu powers of Tribunal‑Labour Court accepting application for restoration and setting aside ex parte order and final order ‑Ex parte order passed on receipt of service report of Bailiff‑Signature of respondent not tallying with those en duplicate copy of report of Bailiff‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, did not suffer from legal infirmity, illegality or impropriety warranting correction in revision. Syed Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Applicant. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1981. This purports to be information laid before this Tribunal for the exercise of its suo motu powers of revision in respect of an order passed by the learned Third Labour Court on 4th February 1981, setting aside the ex parse order, dated 29th October 1980, and the final order, date 23rd November 1980, made by the said Court in the case of Syed Akbar v. Nazim Silk Mills under section 25‑A, I. R. O.
2. I have examined the order in question of the learned Labour Court and am not satisfied that it suffers from any legal infirmity, illegality or impropriety which needs to be corrected by this Tribunal. The order in question was passed on the application of Nazim Silk Mills, for setting aside the earlier ex parse orders and the final orders, which were passed on the assumption that Nazim Silk Mills, though duly served, failed to appear on the date of hearing. The service on the Nazim Silk Mills, was held to be duly served on the basis of the report of the bailiff of the Court. However, along with the restoration application a partner of Nazim Silk Mills, by name Khalid Shafique, filed his affidavit and subsequently testified before the learned Labour Court that the notice of the Labour Court had not been received by him. The learned Labour Court was also impressed by the fact that the signature on the duplicate copy of the notice did not tally with the signature of Khalid Shafique. It cannot be said that these are not weighty grounds upon which the learned Labour Court held service on Nazim Silk Mills had not been duly established. It was, however, contended by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi that not only the bailiff had endorsed on the summons that the same had been duly served on Nazim Silk Mills but there was also affidavit of Said Akbar that the summons bad been duly served on Nazim Silk Mills. These two circum stances do not out weigh the material on record relied upon by the learned Labour Court in setting aside the ex parse orders including the final order passed thereon.
3. I, accordingly, see no ground for interfering with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. Appeal dismissed.