1992 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))
Messrs MARKET SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED Versus IQBAL JAVED and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP 687 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs MARKET SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED Versus IQBAL JAVED and 2 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1992 PLP 687 (PLC(CS)) (Messrs MARKET SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED Versus IQBAL JAVED and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1991.
- These are 3 Revision Applications against the orders of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. V1, dated 18-2-1990; whereby he allowed the applications of the respondents for the production of the documents which are in possession of the applicants/management. The objection of the applicants in the grievance applications appears to be that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to them as they do not employ the requisite number of workers. In view of the learned Labour Court, the record with regard to the employment of the employees would be within the power and possession of the applicants, therefore, he ordered them to produce the relevant record. There appears to be nothing illegal in the order. The only objection raised by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the applicants is that the applications were moved by the respondents after 50 days of filing of the reply statement by the management. He, however, concedes that there is no limitation laid down under the Law, but, contended that the principle of the C.P.C. would be applicable for moving the application for production of the documents. Provisions of the C.P.C. are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of the Labour Court. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there appears to be nothing illegal or improper in the impugned orders to call for any interference by this Tribunal. The revision applications are, therefore, dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25(3-a)
Petitioners challenging order of Labour Court allowing application of respondents for production of documents which were in possession of applicants/management
Applicants raised objection in grievance petition that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to them as they did not employ the requisite number of workers
Record with regard to employment of employees was within power and possession of applicants, therefore, they were ordered to produce same
Held, there was nothing illegal in order of Labour Court
Order of Labour Court was upheld.
S. 25(3-a)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.1
Proceedings before Labour Court
Provisions of Civil Procedure Code were not strictly applicable to such proceedings. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicants
Judgment & Decree
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
S. 25(3-a)
Petitioners challenging order of Labour Court allowing application of respondents for production of documents which were in possession of applicants/management
Applicants raised objection in grievance petition that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to them as they did not employ the requisite number of workers
Record with regard to employment of employees was within power and possession of applicants, therefore, they were ordered to produce same
Held, there was nothing illegal in order of Labour Court
Order of Labour Court was upheld. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
S. 25(3-a)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.1
Proceedings before Labour Court
Provisions of Civil Procedure Code were not strictly applicable to such proceedings. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicants Date of hearing: 19th January, 1991. These are 3 Revision Applications against the orders of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. V1, dated 18-2-1990; whereby he allowed the applications of the respondents for the production of the documents which are in possession of the applicants/management. The objection of the applicants in the grievance applications appears to be that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to them as they do not employ the requisite number of workers. In view of the learned Labour Court, the record with regard to the employment of the employees would be within the power and possession of the applicants, therefore, he ordered them to produce the relevant record. There appears to be nothing illegal in the order. The only objection raised by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the applicants is that the applications were moved by the respondents after 50 days of filing of the reply statement by the management. He, however, concedes that there is no limitation laid down under the Law, but, contended that the principle of the C.P.C. would be applicable for moving the application for production of the documents. Provisions of the C.P.C. are not strictly applicable to the proceedings of the Labour Court. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there appears to be nothing illegal or improper in the impugned orders to call for any interference by this Tribunal. The revision applications are, therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H./1832/Lb.S Application dismissed.