1972 PLP 299 (PLC)
PAKISTAN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS AND 2 OTHERS Versus CHAIRMAN, SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1, KARACHI AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1972 PLP 299 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sind & Baluchistan High Court |
| Bench Members | Noorul Arfin and Khuda Bakhsh Marri, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS AND 2 OTHERS Versus CHAIRMAN, SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1, KARACHI AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 299 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 299 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sind & Baluchistan High Court bench comprising: Noorul Arfin and Khuda Bakhsh Marri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 299 (PLC) (PAKISTAN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS AND 2 OTHERS Versus CHAIRMAN, SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1, KARACHI AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- ----S. 49(3) Representation of parties by legal practitioner‑Necessity for‑To be explained by party desiring to engage legal practitioner‑Legal practitioner engaged by party cannot be expected to explain circum stances necessitating his engagement‑Party submitting application to Labour Court for permission to engage Advocate explaining circumstances necessitating it‑Labour Court requiring Advocate to explain necessity of his engagement and without applying its mind to party's application refused permission applied for‑Order of Labour Court; in circumstances, held, without lawful authority and set aside with directions that Labour Court should adjudicate application of party for permission to engage legal practitioner.
- The petitioner No. 2 engaged Mr. Obaider Rehman to represent it before the Sind Labour Court No. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Court insisted upon Mr. Obaidur Rehman to explain the reasons necessitating his employment as an Advocate by the petitioner No. 2. It is contended that the learned Court should have addressed itself to the petitioner No. 2 to satisfy itself as to the necessity for the appearance of an Advocate on its behalf, but instead of doing so, the learned Court addressed itself to the Advocate. We agree with Mr. Obaidur Rehman's contention that this was an erroneous procedure adopted by the Sind Labour Court No. 1. This Court should have required the petitioner No. 2 to explain the circumstances making it necessary for it to engage the service of an Advocate and an Advocate cannot be expected to explain why he has been engaged by his client. The learned Advocate‑General agrees with this interpretation of the sub section (3) of section 49 of the aforesaid Ordinance. Our attention has also been drawn to an application made by the petitioner No. 2, a copy of which is on page 17 of our record, which explained the reasons as to why the services of an Advocate were necessary to represent the interest of the petitioner No. 2. It appears that the Sind, Labour Court No. 1 has not applied its mind to this application at all.
- 2. We are of the view that the impugned order is without lawful authority and is therefore, hereby set aside. The Sind Labour Court No. 1 shall now adjudicate the application of petitioner No. 2 for permission to engage the services of an Advocate and if necessary to elicit from petitioner No. 2 further circumstances making it necessary for this petitioner to be represented by an Advocate before the Sind Labour Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 49(3) Representation of parties by legal practitioner‑Necessity for‑To be explained by party desiring to engage legal practitioner‑Legal practitioner engaged by party cannot be expected to explain circum stances necessitating his engagement‑Party submitting application to Labour Court for permission to engage Advocate explaining circumstances necessitating it‑Labour Court requiring Advocate to explain necessity of his engagement and without applying its mind to party's application refused permission applied for‑Order of Labour Court; in circumstances, held, without lawful authority and set aside with directions that Labour Court should adjudicate application of party for permission to engage legal practitioner. Petitioner No. 3 in person. Kazi Akhtar Ahmed, A.‑G. (notice from the Court).
Judgment & Decree
NOORUL ARFIN, J.‑This case involves a very short point relating to interpretation of subsection (3) of sec tion 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This provision requires that a party to an industrial dispute may be represented by a local practitioner in any proceedings before the Labour Court, or before an Arbitrator, with the permission of the Court or the Arbitrator as the case may be. The petitioner No. 2 engaged Mr. Obaider Rehman to represent it before the Sind Labour Court No.
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Court insisted upon Mr. Obaidur Rehman to explain the reasons necessitating his employment as an Advocate by the petitioner No.
2. It is contended that the learned Court should have addressed itself to the petitioner No. 2 to satisfy itself as to the necessity for the appearance of an Advocate on its behalf, but instead of doing so, the learned Court addressed itself to the Advocate. We agree with Mr. Obaidur Rehman's contention that this was an erroneous procedure adopted by the Sind Labour Court No.
1. This Court should have required the petitioner No. 2 to explain the circumstances making it necessary for it to engage the service of an Advocate and an Advocate cannot be expected to explain why he has been engaged by his client. The learned Advocate‑General agrees with this interpretation of the sub section (3) of section 49 of the aforesaid Ordinance. Our attention has also been drawn to an application made by the petitioner No. 2, a copy of which is on page 17 of our record, which explained the reasons as to why the services of an Advocate were necessary to represent the interest of the petitioner No.
2. It appears that the Sind, Labour Court No. 1 has not applied its mind to this application at all.
2. We are of the view that the impugned order is without lawful authority and is therefore, hereby set aside. The Sind Labour Court No. 1 shall now adjudicate the application of petitioner No. 2 for permission to engage the services of an Advocate and if necessary to elicit from petitioner No. 2 further circumstances making it necessary for this petitioner to be represented by an Advocate before the Sind Labour Court.