1997 PLP 461 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and 3 others Versus MUHAMMAD KARIM and another
| Citation | 1997 PLP 461 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and 3 others Versus MUHAMMAD KARIM and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 461 (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 1997 PLP 461 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 461 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and 3 others Versus MUHAMMAD KARIM and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1996.
- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 38(3‑a) & 49‑‑‑Ex parte order‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Employer (Railways) was proceeded ex parte on ground that Legal Advisor and Advocate of employer who appeared in case was not granted permission to appear because Pakistan Railways Officer (Divisional Superintendent) against whom grievance petition was filed by employee had not appeared in person, though he had deputed a clerk to produce documents in the Court‑‑ Held, in many cases in which Railways were being made party, if Divisional Superintendent of Railways would personally appear in all such cases, he could do no other work‑‑‑Ex parte order passed by Labour Court, was set aside, in circumstances.
- Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan has argued that Mr. Mehboob Elahi Malik .was the Legal Advisor and Advocate for the Railways who had appeared in the case but he was not granted permission to appear because the Pakistan Railways Officer had not appeared in person who had deputed a clerk to produce the documents. There are so many cases in which Railways are party. That if the D.S. appears personally in all these cases he can do no other work.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 38(3‑a) & 49‑‑‑Ex parte order‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Employer (Railways) was proceeded ex parte on ground that Legal Advisor and Advocate of employer who appeared in case was not granted permission to appear because Pakistan Railways Officer (Divisional Superintendent) against whom grievance petition was filed by employee had not appeared in person, though he had deputed a clerk to produce documents in the Court‑‑ Held, in many cases in which Railways were being made party, if Divisional Superintendent of Railways would personally appear in all such cases, he could do no other work‑‑‑Ex parte order passed by Labour Court, was set aside, in circumstances. Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Applicants. Respondents in person.
Judgment & Decree
Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Applicants. Respondents in person. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1996. This Revision Application is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Sukkur passed under section 49 of the I.R.O. directing the case to proceed ex parte against the Railways. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan has argued that Mr. Mehboob Elahi Malik .was the Legal Advisor and Advocate for the Railways who had appeared in the case but he was not granted permission to appear because the Pakistan Railways Officer had not appeared in person who had deputed a clerk to produce the documents. There are so many cases in which Railways are party. That if the D.S. appears personally in all these cases he can do no other work.
3. The ex parte order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside. The grievance petition may now be heard afresh and both the parties may be allowed to be represented.
4. Case remanded. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./191/Lb.S Order accordingly