1991 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))
TAJ MUHAMMAD and another Versus MOHSIN ALI and another
| Citation | 1991 PLP 731 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Aliened Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | TAJ MUHAMMAD and another Versus MOHSIN ALI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Aliened Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 731 (PLC(CS)) (TAJ MUHAMMAD and another Versus MOHSIN ALI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.A. Nanji, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th December, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(5)‑‑‑Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976), S.3‑‑‑Contempt‑‑ Contention by petitioners that respondents failed to comply with order of Tribunal and prayed for taking action under Contempt of Court Act, 1976‑‑ Order of Tribunal was not complied with because respondents filed a Constitutional petition challenging decision of Tribunal and matter was pending before High Court and order of Tribunal was stayed‑‑‑Held, it was not proper to initiate proceedings under Contempt of Court Act in circumstances. Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. Nanji, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1990. These two applications are under section 38(5) of the I.R.O. 1969 for taking action under Contempt of Court against the respondents for failing to comply with the orders of this Tribunal dated 12-10-1989, wherein a period of one month was prescribed for compliance of the order of this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned Representative for the applicants and Mr. SA. Nanji, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record of the case. 3. Admittedly the order has not so far been complied with, but the respondents filed Constitution petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh challenging the decision of this Tribunal. The petition was admitted on 14-11-1989 and on 23-11-1989 matter was adjourned by the Hon'ble High Court and it was ordered that no adverse action be taken in the meantime. On 11-1-1990 by consent of the parties, operation of the order of the Tribunal was stayed on the condition, that the respondents would furnish bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) within a period of one month. The respondents did not furnish the bank guarantee, but on 4-3-1990 again the operation of the order of this Tribunal was stayed by consent subject to furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,000 (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) within a period of two weeks. Again on 30-4-1990, the aforesaid order was modified and by consent of the parties the respondent was ordered to deposit the amount in the Court. Mr. Nanji makes statement, that the amount has been deposited. 4. Mr. Khalilur Rehman states that as order of this Tribunal was not complied with within time, the offence has been made out. Be that as it may, as the matter is pending in the Hon'ble High Court and the order of this Tribunal is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, it is not proper to initiate the proceedings under contempt at this stage. The applications are therefore dismissed as E premature at this stage. However the applicants are at liberty to move the application under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or under section 25-A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in case either the stay order is vacated by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh or the Constitution petition is decided in favour of the applicants. Notices toe respondents stand discharged. M.Y.H./1812/Lb. S Petition dismissed.