2004 PLP 215 (PLC)
RAUF TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI and 4 others Versus Messrs RAUF TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 2004 PLP 215 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz A. Channa, Member |
| Parties | RAUF TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI and 4 others Versus Messrs RAUF TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 215 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 215 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Ali Nawaz A. Channa, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 215 (PLC) (RAUF TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI and 4 others Versus Messrs RAUF TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Petitioners.
- S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents.
- After the dismissal of stay application as well as main petition, learned advocate for the petitioner filed this application under section 151, C.P.C praying therein to keep the operation of the order in abeyance and to continue the interim order of stay till hearing of appeal by the Full Bench. Notice of this application was given to the respondent whose advocate has filed objections.
- 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondents.
- 3. Learned Advocate for the respondents strongly opposed this application on the ground that application is not supported by an affidavit, this Court after disposing of the case has become functus officio and therefore, neither can review nor revise its own order nor can suspend or keep in abeyance the operation of judgment. He also argued that the application is misconceived as after the dismissal of stay application learned advocate of the petitioners wants continuation of the stay order which will amount to information of the stay order.
- 4. On the other hand learned advocate for the petitioners argued that he wants to file appeal against the order of this Commission at Islamabad and therefore, he needs time to file appeal and till then the operation of judgment of this Commission may be suspended otherwise the respondent will terminate the services of the petitioners
- 6. By judgment the stay application has been dismissed on merits. Now the learned advocate for the petitioners wants to continue the stay application which amounts that stay order will be confirmed. This will be a conflicting order and no such prayer can be granted in this Misc. application. Accordingly I do not find any merits in this application and dismiss it accordingly:
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations 1973 Regln.32‑‑‑Dismissal of stay application and main petition‑‑‑Application praying to keep operation of order in abeyance and to continue interim order of stay‑‑‑Applicant, after dismissal of stay application as well as main petition filed under S.22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, had filed application under S.151 C.P. C. praying therein to keep operation of order in abeyance and to continue interim order of stay till hearing of appeal by Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑ Whether applicant actually wanted to file appeal or not was not known as no affidavit was filed by applicant alongwith the application‑‑ Provisions of C.P.C. were not strictly applicable to proceedings before National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑Once order was passed by National Industrial Relations Commission, it could not review, revise or suspend operation of its order as after passing order National Industrial Relations Commission would become functus officio and it was for the, Appellate Court to stay or suspend operation of, judgment of National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑When stay application was dismissed by judgment on merits, to continue stay on application would amount to its confirmation which would be a conflicting order and no such prayer could be granted in a miscellaneous application‑‑‑Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
After the dismissal of stay application as well as main petition, learned advocate for the petitioner filed this application under section 151, C.P.C praying therein to keep the operation of the order in abeyance and to continue the interim order of stay till hearing of appeal by the Full Bench. Notice of this application was given to the respondent whose advocate has filed objections.
2. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondents.
3. Learned Advocate for the respondents strongly opposed this application on the ground that application is not supported by an affidavit, this Court after disposing of the case has become functus officio and therefore, neither can review nor revise its own order nor can suspend or keep in abeyance the operation of judgment. He also argued that the application is misconceived as after the dismissal of stay application learned advocate of the petitioners wants continuation of the stay order which will amount to information of the stay order.
4. On the other hand learned advocate for the petitioners argued that he wants to file appeal against the order of this Commission at Islamabad and therefore, he needs time to file appeal and till then the operation of judgment of this Commission may be suspended otherwise the respondent will terminate the services of the petitioners
5. This application appears to be not maintainable. It is not known if the petitioners actually want to file an appeal or not as no affidavit of the petitioners has been filed alongwith application. Even otherwise provisions of C.P.C. are not strictly applicable to the proceedings before this Commission. National Industrial Relations Commission acts as the Special Court and not as Civil Court. Once the order is passed by the N.I.R.C. it cannot review, revise or suspend the operation of its order. The N.I.R.C. after passing the order becomes functus officio and it is for the Appellate Court to stay or suspend the operation of judgment of this Court.
6. By judgment the stay application has been dismissed on merits. Now the learned advocate for the petitioners wants to continue the stay application which amounts that stay order will be confirmed. This will be a conflicting order and no such prayer can be granted in this Misc. application. Accordingly I do not find any merits in this application and dismiss it accordingly: Announced in open Court. This 11th day of June, 2002. H.B.T./63/NIRC Application dismissed.