1991 PLP 596 (PLC(CS))
DURIA AMAN Versus PEOPLE FURNISHERS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1991 PLP 596 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DURIA AMAN Versus PEOPLE FURNISHERS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 596 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 596 (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: 1991 PLP 596 (PLC(CS)) (DURIA AMAN Versus PEOPLE FURNISHERS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Karim Mograni for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th November, 1990.
- Heard Mr. A.De. Cruz, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Karim Mograni, learned counsel for the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Production of documents‑‑‑Reason prevailing with Labour Court in allowing application for production of documents under S. 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance being that it had to go through all facts of the case to pass rich orders as may be just and proper‑‑‑No illegality having been shown in the order passed, revision was declined. A.De. Cruz for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
A.De. Cruz for Applicant. Abdul Karim Mograni for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th November, 1990. Heard Mr. A.De. Cruz, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Karim Mograni, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By this revision application the applicant has attacked the integrity, correctness and propriety of two orders passed by the learned Labour Court. Under two orders, dated 6‑5‑1990, the learned. Labour Court allowed the applications of the respondents to produce certain documents. The main objection of Mr. De. Cruz is that those applications were filed after the side of the applicant was closed in order to fill up the lacuna in the case of respondents and therefore those applications should not have been allowed and further that there is no reason given by the learned Labour Court for allowing the applications.
3. The third order under which the application of the applicant for production of document is said to have been rejected by the learned Labour Court, has not been produced by the applicant.
4. The reason given by the learned Labour Court in allowing the applications of the respondent is that under section 25‑A of I.R.O, 1969, the Labour Court has to go through all the facts to pass such order as may be just and proper. This is provided under subsection (5) of section 25‑A. I do not find anything illegal, improper or incorrect in the orders of the learned Labour Court to call for interference of this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision. However, if the documents are allowed to be produced after the side of the applicant has been closed it will be in the interest of justice that the applicant be allowed to submit his documents, if he so desire. Revision application stands disposed of accordingly. M.Y.H./1786/Lb.S Order accordingly.