1992 PLP 1441 (CLC)
INDUS STEEL PIPES LTD.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.Vl, HYDERABAD and 77 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1441 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J |
| Parties | INDUS STEEL PIPES LTD.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.Vl, HYDERABAD and 77 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1441 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1441 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1441 (CLC) (INDUS STEEL PIPES LTD.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.Vl, HYDERABAD and 77 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khani Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.VII, R.11(b) & (c)‑‑‑Dismissal of petition/appeal 'for deficiency in. payment of court‑fee‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Court on discovery of omission or error in valuation or deficiency in payment of court‑fees, would, under provision of O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, allow time to plaintiff/appellant to make correction and supply deficiency‑‑‑When such permission was granted and deficiency was made good, then plaint would be deemed to have been validly filed on date of its original presentation notwithstanding the fact that court‑fee was supplied after expiry of period of limitation. Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Gul Hayat and another 1989 C L C 2080; Muhammad Sulaiman v. Ihsan Ali PLD 1983 Kar. 537 and Siddiq Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor Khan PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Khani Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1992. This Constitutional petition is directed against the order passed by Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18‑3‑1989, allowing the application of respondents Nos. 3 to 78 under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner had affixed court‑fees of Rs.2 instead of Rs.5 on the memo. of appeal. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has passed the aforesaid order relying on 1989 C L C 2080 (Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Gul Hayat and another) and PLD 1983 Karachi 537 (Muhammad Sulaiman v. Ihsan Ali). The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that no objection was raised by the office at the time of presentation of the appeal with regard to the deficiency in payment of court‑fees. It is further submitted that the appeal was admitted to regular hearing. No such objection was raised even at the time of hearing of the appeal but, however, the learned Labour Court took up the issue only at the time of dictating the judgment and dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to PLD 1984 SC 289 (Siddiq Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor Khan), wherein the question of deficiency of the court‑fees was considered with regard to its effect on the limitation. It was observed that the Court on discovery of an omission or error in valuation or deficiency in payment of court‑fees, shall, acting under Order VII, .Rule 11 .(b) and (c), allow time to the plaintiff to make correction and supply the deficiency. If he does so, then the plaint shall be deemed to have A been validly filed on the date of the original presentation notwithstanding the fact that the court‑fees was supplied after the expiry of the period of limitation. I, therefore, allow this petition. The case is remanded to the Appellate Court for decision on merits. Since the respondents have not come forward to contest the petition, there shall be no order as to costs. A.A./I‑185/K Case remanded.