2000 PLP 114 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAREEF Versus FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY, RAWALPINDI and another
| Citation | 2000 PLP 114 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tamil-ur-Rehman, Chairman |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAREEF Versus FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY, RAWALPINDI and another |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 114 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 114 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tamil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 114 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAREEF Versus FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY, RAWALPINDI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 25-A & 38(3-a)---Grievance petition---Closing right of cross -examination Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of by Appellate Tribunal-- Respondents/employers filed affidavits-in-evidence of their two witnesses and proceedings were adjourned for cross-examination of said witness by petitioner/employee---Matter was adjourned from time to time on request of petitioner/employee for the reason that his counsel remained absent---After about thirteen adjournments petitioner/employee had failed to cross-examine witnesses of employer---On final date of hearing petitioner/employee or his counsel having failed to appear, right of employee to cross-examine witnesses of employer, was closed by Labour Court and main petition filed under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by employee was fixed for final arguments---Validity---Order of Labour Court closing right of employee to cross-examine witnesses of employer not suffering from any illegality or impropriety could not be interfered with by Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction especially when application under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had already been disposed of.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Masood A. Khan, Advocate for the respondent, on pre‑admission notice. It is submitted by him that on 28‑10‑1997, the respondents filed affidavits‑in‑evidence of, two witnesses namely M/s. Matiullah and Saifullah. The case was then fixed for cross‑examination of the respondent's witnesses. It was adjourned from time to time mainly for the reason that .the applicant's counsel remained absent or requested for time. Ultimately, the case against came up for cross‑examination on 6‑10‑1998; meanwhile,' the case had already been adjourned for thirteen (13) times for cross‑examination during the year. However, the learned Labour Court, showing its leniency, again gave a last chance to the applicant's counsel for cross‑examination of the respondent's witnesses and the case was fixed for 24‑10‑1998. The case was, later on fixed for 19‑11‑1998. On that day too, adjournment was sought on the ground that his counsel was busy in the High court and the case may be fixed on any "Saturday". Accordingly, it was fixed for 21‑11‑1998, being Saturday, as requested on behalf of the applicant. On the said date, applicant's right to cross‑examine the respondents' witnesses was closed as none for the applicant was present, neither the applicant nor his counsel.
- 9. It may be added that when I was at the close of dictating the above order, Mr. Ghulam Nabi, junior of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate for the applicant, made his appearance and submitted that Mr. Gohar Iqbal is busy in the High Court, seeking adjournment, which request, was rejected by me.
Headnotes / Summary
Nemo for Applicant. Masood A. Khan (on Pre-Admission Notice). This is a revision application under section 38 (3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order, dated 22-2-1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.5, Karachi, dismissing the application of the applicant for re-calling the order, dated 21-11-1998.
2. I have heard Mr. Masood A. Khan, Advocate for the respondent, on pre-admission notice. It is submitted by him that on 28-10-1997, the respondents filed affidavits-in-evidence of, two witnesses namely M/s. Matiullah and Saifullah. The case was then fixed for cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses. It was adjourned from time to time mainly for the reason that .the applicant's counsel remained absent or requested for time. Ultimately, the case against came up for cross-examination on 6-10-1998; meanwhile,' the case had already been adjourned for thirteen (13) times for cross-examination during the year. However, the learned Labour Court, showing its leniency, again gave a last chance to the applicant's counsel for cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses and the case was fixed for 24-10-1998. The case was, later on fixed for 19-11-1998. On that day too, adjournment was sought on the ground that his counsel was busy in the High court and the case may be fixed on any "Saturday". Accordingly, it was fixed for 21-11-1998, being Saturday, as requested on behalf of the applicant. On the said date, applicant's right to cross-examine the respondents' witnesses was closed as none for the applicant was present, neither the applicant nor his counsel.
3. Mr. Khan, therefore, submitted that the learned Labour Court was, thus, constrained to close the right of applicant of cross-examining the respondent's witnesses for their absence and fixed the main application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 for final arguments for 8-12-1998.
4. However an application was moved on behalf of the applicant for re calling the order, dated 21-11-1998, which was rejected by his order, dated 22-2-1999, against which this revision application has been filed.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the main case under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969, has already been disposed of by the learned Labour Court by his order, dated 31-5-1999, and therefore, this revision application has already become infructuous.
6. I have gone through the order, impugned in this revision application and find no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the order, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.5 and it is not a fit case for interference by this Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction.
7. It also seems pertinent to observe that the main application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, has already been disposed of, as submitted by Mr. Khan. This revision application has, otherwise, become infructuous.
8. In view of what has been stated above, the revision application is dismissed in limine.
9. It may be added that when I was at the close of dictating the above order, Mr. Ghulam Nabi, junior of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate for the applicant, made his appearance and submitted that Mr. Gohar Iqbal is busy in the High Court, seeking adjournment, which request, was rejected by me. H.B.T./325/K(Lab.) Trib). Revision dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision application under section 38 (3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order, dated 22‑2‑1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.5, Karachi, dismissing the application of the applicant for re‑calling the order, dated 21‑11‑1998.
2. I have heard Mr. Masood A. Khan, Advocate for the respondent, on pre‑admission notice. It is submitted by him that on 28‑10‑1997, the respondents filed affidavits‑in‑evidence of, two witnesses namely M/s. Matiullah and Saifullah. The case was then fixed for cross‑examination of the respondent's witnesses. It was adjourned from time to time mainly for the reason that .the applicant's counsel remained absent or requested for time. Ultimately, the case against came up for cross‑examination on 6‑10‑1998; meanwhile,' the case had already been adjourned for thirteen (13) times for cross‑examination during the year. However, the learned Labour Court, showing its leniency, again gave a last chance to the applicant's counsel for cross‑examination of the respondent's witnesses and the case was fixed for 24‑10‑1998. The case was, later on fixed for 19‑11‑1998. On that day too, adjournment was sought on the ground that his counsel was busy in the High court and the case may be fixed on any "Saturday". Accordingly, it was fixed for 21‑11‑1998, being Saturday, as requested on behalf of the applicant. On the said date, applicant's right to cross‑examine the respondents' witnesses was closed as none for the applicant was present, neither the applicant nor his counsel.
3. Mr. Khan, therefore, submitted that the learned Labour Court was, thus, constrained to close the right of applicant of cross‑examining the respondent's witnesses for their absence and fixed the main application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969 for final arguments for 8‑12‑1998.
4. However an application was moved on behalf of the applicant for re calling the order, dated 21‑11‑1998, which was rejected by his order, dated 22‑2‑1999, against which this revision application has been filed.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the main case under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969, has already been disposed of by the learned Labour Court by his order, dated 31‑5‑1999, and therefore, this revision application has already become infructuous.
6. I have gone through the order, impugned in this revision application and find no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the order, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.5 and it is not a fit case for interference by this Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction.
7. It also seems pertinent to observe that the main application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, has already been disposed of, as submitted by Mr. Khan. This revision application has, otherwise, become infructuous.
8. In view of what has been stated above, the revision application is dismissed in limine.
9. It may be added that when I was at the close of dictating the above order, Mr. Ghulam Nabi, junior of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate for the applicant, made his appearance and submitted that Mr. Gohar Iqbal is busy in the High Court, seeking adjournment, which request, was rejected by me. H.B.T./325/K(Lab.) Trib). Revision dismissed.