1996 PLC 61 (PLP)
SINDH ABADGAR'S SUGAR MILLS LTD., DINPUR DISTRICT HYDERABAD Versus MUHAMMAD ARAB
| Citation | 1996 PLC 61 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SINDH ABADGAR'S SUGAR MILLS LTD., DINPUR DISTRICT HYDERABAD Versus MUHAMMAD ARAB |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLC 61 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLC 61 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLC 61 (PLP) (SINDH ABADGAR'S SUGAR MILLS LTD., DINPUR DISTRICT HYDERABAD Versus MUHAMMAD ARAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Yaqoob for Appellant.
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th September, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Four separate grievance petitions filed before Court, were tried separately and evidence was also recorded separately in each case, but Court had examined defence evidence only in the case of one respondent and had used same in all the four cases which were decided by a common judgment
Held, cases either should have been amalgamated by Court and decided according to the common evidence or else evidence of one case should not have been considered as evidence in other cases and all cases should have been tried separately
Order passed by Court below was set aside and case was remanded for, retrial either separately or after all cases were joined together and heard as one case at the joint trial.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Four separate grievance petitions filed before Court, were tried separately and evidence was also recorded separately in each case, but Court had examined defence evidence only in the case of one respondent and had used same in all the four cases which were decided by a common judgment‑‑‑Held, cases either should have been amalgamated by Court and decided according to the common evidence or else evidence of one case should not have been considered as evidence in other cases and all cases should have been tried separately‑‑‑Order passed by Court below was set aside and case was remanded for, retrial either separately or after all cases were joined together and heard as one case at the joint trial. S.M. Yaqoob for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th September, 1995. There were four separate grievance petitions before the Labour Court. The Labour Court tried these cases separately recorded the evidence also separately in each case. The Court has examined defence evidence only in the case of one respondent and used the same in all the four cases which have been decided by a common judgment.
2. Either the cases should have been amalgamated and decided according to the common evidence or else the evidence of one case could not be considered as evidence in the other cases tried separately.
3. For the above reason the judgment in the four petitions is set aside and the cases are remanded to the Sixth Sindh Labour Court at Hyderabad for retrial either separately or after all the cases are joined together for been heard as one case at the joint trial. No opinion is expressed on merits and the Labour Court is at liberty to decide the matter on facts and law applicable to these cases. H.B.T./2502/Lb.S Order accordingly.