1999 PLP 29 (PLC)
Syed IMAM-UD-DIN AHMED alias ARSHAD Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS ABBAS and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP 29 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Marri, J |
| Parties | Syed IMAM-UD-DIN AHMED alias ARSHAD Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS ABBAS and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 29 (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 1999 PLP 29 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Marri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 29 (PLC) (Syed IMAM-UD-DIN AHMED alias ARSHAD Versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS ABBAS and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Yaqoob and S.M. Iqbal for Appellant.
- Muhammad Noor, Asstt. A.-G. for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1998.
- Muhammad Noor, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondent No.2.
- 2. Precise facts relevant for disposal of instant application are that the respondent No. l Muhammad Ilyas filed an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, against Bela Auto Motives Limited in the Court of learned Presiding Officer‑111, Labour Court Hub. During proceedings the case was adjourned for 16‑6‑1998, for filing affidavit of the petitioner. In this regard a request was made by the counsel for the Bela Auto Motives for adjournment of case after 1‑7‑1998, on the ground that he had intention to go to Northern area with his family but the learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case for 16‑6‑1998. On this date the affidavit could not be filed due to absence of counsel for Bela Auto Motives Limited, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 20‑6‑1998. On this date as well affidavit could not be filed, as such, the learned trial Court imposed fine of Rs.300 upon the Company and the case was adjourned for 23‑3‑1998, for the said purpose. On this date an application was filed alongwith supporting affidavit by the Bela Auto Motives Company Limited for adjournment of case for 2nd July, 1998, on the ground that its counsel had gone to Northern area. The learned trial Court instead of adjourning the case closed the side of Bela Auto Motives Company Limited and fixed the case for 30‑6‑1998, for final arguments. On this date the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by Company for adjournment of case for 2‑7‑1998 and while treating/considering para. Nos.3 and 4 of the supporting affidavit as "contemptuous" issued contempt notice against applicant and one Fareed Ullah, Advocate/Notary Public. Reply to contempt notice was submitted before the trial Court wherein plea was taken that neither any contempt was committed by the applicant nor the trial Court had jurisdiction under section 38(5) of I.R.O., 1969, to initiate proceedings. On 6‑7‑1998, the reply of application was rejected and fixed the case for 9‑7‑1998, for framing of charge.
- I have heard Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel for applicant; whereas respondent No. l is present in person and Mr. Muhammad Noor, Assistant Advocate‑General represented the State.
- Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, Advocate vehemently contended that, the contempt notice was,mainly issued on the basis of paras. Nos. 3 and 4 of supporting affidavit but bare perusal of both the above paras. would indicate that no contempt or contemptuous language has been used rather it was requested that the case be adjourned under compelling circumstances as the counsel for Company was out of station. He next contended that the learned trial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter under section 38(5) of I.R.O. as this Tribunal is only competent to adjudicate upon the matter, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and the notice issued to petitioner deserves to be withdrawn.
- Whereas Mr. Muhammad Noor, Assistant Advocate‑General when was asked to satisfy the Court that how the learned Presiding Officer‑III, Labour Court, Hub, has jurisdiction to issue contempt notice, he candidly conceded that under the law learned Presiding Officer‑III, Labour Court, Hub has no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings before the applicant. He further submitted that perusal of application and affidavit reveal that no contemptuous language has been used therein.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A & 38(3-a), (5)
Matter was adjourned for filing affidavit of employer
Employer who had failed to file affidavit on account of absence of his counsel, had filed application on behalf of his counsel alongwith supporting affidavit for adjournment of case for specified date on ground that his counsel had gone to the Northern Areas
Labour Court instead of adjourning case as prayed for, not only closed the side of employer and fixed case for final arguments but also issued contempt notice to employer treating some paras. of supporting affidavit filed alongwith application for adjournment of case as "contemptuous "
Perusal of affidavit had clearly shown that offence of contempt had not been made out
Labour Court, under law, had no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against employer on its own, but Labour Appellate Tribunal was only competent forum to initiate contempt proceedings, if case of contempt was made out
Order of Labour Court was set aside and contempt notice issued against employer stood withdrawn. Respondent No. l in person.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Noor, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1998. This application is directed against the order dated 6‑7‑1998 and 30‑6‑1998, passed by learned Presiding Officer‑III, Hub whereby notice for Contempt of Court was issued against the applicant.
2. Precise facts relevant for disposal of instant application are that the respondent No. l Muhammad Ilyas filed an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, against Bela Auto Motives Limited in the Court of learned Presiding Officer‑111, Labour Court Hub. During proceedings the case was adjourned for 16‑6‑1998, for filing affidavit of the petitioner. In this regard a request was made by the counsel for the Bela Auto Motives for adjournment of case after 1‑7‑1998, on the ground that he had intention to go to Northern area with his family but the learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case for 16‑6‑1998. On this date the affidavit could not be filed due to absence of counsel for Bela Auto Motives Limited, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 20‑6‑1998. On this date as well affidavit could not be filed, as such, the learned trial Court imposed fine of Rs.300 upon the Company and the case was adjourned for 23‑3‑1998, for the said purpose. On this date an application was filed alongwith supporting affidavit by the Bela Auto Motives Company Limited for adjournment of case for 2nd July, 1998, on the ground that its counsel had gone to Northern area. The learned trial Court instead of adjourning the case closed the side of Bela Auto Motives Company Limited and fixed the case for 30‑6‑1998, for final arguments. On this date the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by Company for adjournment of case for 2‑7‑1998 and while treating/considering para. Nos.3 and 4 of the supporting affidavit as "contemptuous" issued contempt notice against applicant and one Fareed Ullah, Advocate/Notary Public. Reply to contempt notice was submitted before the trial Court wherein plea was taken that neither any contempt was committed by the applicant nor the trial Court had jurisdiction under section 38(5) of I.R.O., 1969, to initiate proceedings. On 6‑7‑1998, the reply of application was rejected and fixed the case for 9‑7‑1998, for framing of charge. Being aggrieved of the order dated 30‑6‑1998 and 6‑7‑1998, applicant has preferred instant application challenging the same. I have heard Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel for applicant; whereas respondent No. l is present in person and Mr. Muhammad Noor, Assistant Advocate‑General represented the State. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, Advocate vehemently contended that, the contempt notice was,mainly issued on the basis of paras. Nos. 3 and 4 of supporting affidavit but bare perusal of both the above paras. would indicate that no contempt or contemptuous language has been used rather it was requested that the case be adjourned under compelling circumstances as the counsel for Company was out of station. He next contended that the learned trial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter under section 38(5) of I.R.O. as this Tribunal is only competent to adjudicate upon the matter, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and the notice issued to petitioner deserves to be withdrawn. Whereas Mr. Muhammad Noor, Assistant Advocate‑General when was asked to satisfy the Court that how the learned Presiding Officer‑III, Labour Court, Hub, has jurisdiction to issue contempt notice, he candidly conceded that under the law learned Presiding Officer‑III, Labour Court, Hub has no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings before the applicant. He further submitted that perusal of application and affidavit reveal that no contemptuous language has been used therein. I have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case made so available. Perusal of affidavit ostensible that offence of contempt has not been made out neither under the law the learned Presiding Officer‑III, Labour Court, Hub has jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against the applicant on its own rather this Tribunal is the only competent forum/Court to initiate contempt proceedings, if any, made out. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove I am of the considered opinion that no contempt has been committed by the applicant nor the trial Court has jurisdiction to issue such notice, as such, application is accepted. Impugned order is set aside and contempt notice issued against applicant stands withdrawn. H.B.T./38/Lb/Q Application accepted.