1987 PLP 262 (PLC)
IRFAN HUSSAIN Versus Messrs UNITED LINES AGENCY
| Citation | 1987 PLP 262 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | M.S.H. Quraishi, Chairman |
| Parties | IRFAN HUSSAIN Versus Messrs UNITED LINES AGENCY |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 262 (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 1987 PLP 262 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: M.S.H. Quraishi, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 262 (PLC) (IRFAN HUSSAIN Versus Messrs UNITED LINES AGENCY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid A. Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- S.M. Yaqub for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 22‑C‑‑Contempt proceedings‑‑Main case alleging unfair labour practices withdrawn‑‑None of ingredients of contempt, held, would exist thereafter‑‑New case also dismissed for failure of complainant to establish prima facie case of unfair labour practice‑‑Contempt petition dismissed‑ Held, it will not be a proper exercise of powers of Court to embark upon a prosecution of respondent for contempt.
Judgment & Decree
Rashid A. Chaudhry for Petitioner. S.M. Yaqub for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st September, 1986. Comments have been filed by the respondent in which it has been stated that Messrs Waterman Steamship Corporation as already mentioned in the first comments submitted in case No.4‑A(124)/85, was under an application for bankruptcy and that it was in this context that it had been mentioned that the respondent had lost business. It has been further stated that the respondent had never said that they had lost the Agency itself of that Corporation and that, therefore, the advertisement dated 14‑11‑1985 showing them as Agents for Waterman Steamship Corporation was not in conflict with the stand taken in the first comments. In reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent's assertion as to loss of business has been controverted. It may be relevant to note that this petition for contempt had been filed in the main case namely; 4‑A(124)/85. That case had been withdrawn on 13‑11‑1985. Although another case is stated to have already been instituted by the petitioner against the respondent on 10‑11‑1985, to which case, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the contempt petition would now relate, but it is surprising that in this contempt petition which was filed subsequently on 23‑12‑1985, the case to which the contempt is said to relate, as mentioned in the body of the petition itself, is the original case No.4‑A(124)/85 and not the other case instituted on 10‑11‑1985. No attempt has so far been made to correct the error if any. Considering the fact that the case No.4‑A(124)/85 had been withdrawn, none of the ingredients of contempt under section A 22‑C of I.R.0., 1969 can be said to exist. I, therefore, see no good reason to proceed against 'the respondent for contempt, as regards the main case No.4‑A(124)/85. Even if the contempt petition were to relate to the other case filed on 10‑11‑1985, which bears No.4‑A(2)/85, it must be mentioned that the case was dismissed on 24‑7‑1986 on account of failure of the complainant to establish a prima facie case of unfair labour practice. That being so, it will not be a proper exercise of powers of the Court to embark upon a prosecution of the respondent for contempt. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. A.E./72/Lb Petition dismissed.