1974 PLP 298 (PLC)
MESSRS SATTAR SILK INDUSTRIES, KARACHI Versus HUNAR SAID
| Citation | 1974 PLP 298 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSRS SATTAR SILK INDUSTRIES, KARACHI Versus HUNAR SAID |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1974 PLP 298 (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 1974 PLP 298 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1974 PLP 298 (PLC) (MESSRS SATTAR SILK INDUSTRIES, KARACHI Versus HUNAR SAID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Razzaq for Appellant.
- Wasi Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Ss. 2(ii), (xiii) & 37(3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 13‑Refusal to set aside, ex parte order‑Not at adjudication of industrial dispute hence not an award‑Not appea l able‑Award, held, would not remain dormant till disposal of apply section under O. IX, r. 13, Civil Procedure Code‑Limitation of 31 days to run from date of award and not from date of disposal d application to set it aside.
Judgment & Decree
Wasi Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd May 1973. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi dated April 4th 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the Appellant filed under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned Representative for the respondent, has take a preliminary objection that no appeal is maintainable against the impugned order as it cannot be said to be an award .Award is defined under section 2111) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), to mean
"the determination by a Labour Court, Arbitrator or Appellate Tribunal of any Industrial dispute or any matter relating thereto and includes an interim award."
2. Mere refusal to set aside an order cannot be said to be an industrial dispute. Industrial dispute means: "any dispute or difference between employers and employer or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is concerned with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person.
3. Refusal to set aside the order passed ex parts cannot be said to be a matter connected with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person. I am of the view that the impugned order is not an award and, therefore, no appeal would lie against the said order.
4. Mr. M. A. Razzaq, the learned Representative for the Appellant, contended that the award become final only after his application under Order IX, rule 13, had been disposed of, i. e. on 4th April 1973. There is rio force in this contention. Under Section 37(3) of the Ordinance, Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) . . . . may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the delivery thereof The appeal, therefore, had to be filed within 30 days of the delivery of the award. There is nothing in subsection (3) of section 37 o the Ordinance to lead one to the conclusion that the time of 30 days for filing the appeal from the delivery, of the award would remain dormant till the disposal of the application under Order IX, rule 1s of the C. P. C.
5. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.