1991 PLP 743 (PLC(CS))
SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI Versus FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT and 4 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 743 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI Versus FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 743 (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 743 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed 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 743 (PLC(CS)) (SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI Versus FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1990
- ----Ss. 25-A(8) & 25-A(9)---Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976), S. 3-- Contempt---Petitioner praying to start contempt of Court proceedings against Labour Court and other respondents/Officers of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and contended that Secretary and Officers of said Corporation who had engaged and authorised an Advocate had no power to engage a . Counsel because grievance petition was filed against its Managing Director and further that Secretary and other Officers of said Corporation by appointing an Advocate had in fact interfered with judicial process and as such had committed contempt of Court---Labour Court had rejected said application but question whether Secretary could engage a counsel was a question of fact which could be decided after framing such issue and after recording evidence by Labour Court---Labour Court had 'given cogent reasons for rejecting application---No contempt was found to have been committed as to warrant any action against respondent-- Interference declined by Tribunal.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi, the applicant in this case. The contention of Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi before the learned Labour Court was that the Secretary of the K.E.S.C. who had engaged and authorised the Advocate to appear before the learned Labour Court had no powers to so engage the Advocate because the grievance application was filed against the K.E.S.C. through its Managing Director. He further contends that the Secretary and other officers of the K.E.S.C. by appearing and appointing the Advocate in Court had in fact interfered in the judicial process and, therefore, they had committed the Contempt of Court.
- 4. In the instant case, the question at issue is whether the Secretary had the power to engage an Advocate. Under Article of Association produced by Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi, under Article 78(8), apart from the general powers conferred by Article 75, the Director has got powers to appoint legal practitioners for representing the company in legal proceedings. However, under Article 75, the Director has powers to depute such of his powers and duties as by the Act need not be performed personally, to the Managing Agents. However, it is a question of fact as to whether the Secretary was authorised to defend the grievance application and engage Advocate either by any resolution of Board of Directors or by rules 'or he has engaged Advocate on his own authority. This question can be decided in the final decision only after such issue is framed and after evidence is recorded by the learned Labour Court. At this stage, I find that the learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application of the applicant and I do not find it necessary to interfere with the said order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(8) & 25‑A(9)‑‑‑Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976), S. 3‑‑ Contempt‑‑‑Petitioner praying to start contempt of Court proceedings against Labour Court and other respondents/Officers of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and contended that Secretary and Officers of said Corporation who had engaged and authorised an Advocate had no power to engage a . Counsel because grievance petition was filed against its Managing Director and further that Secretary and other Officers of said Corporation by appointing an Advocate had in fact interfered with judicial process and as such had committed contempt of Court‑‑‑Labour Court had rejected said application but question whether Secretary could engage a counsel was a question of fact which could be decided after framing such issue and after recording evidence by Labour Court‑‑‑Labour Court had 'given cogent reasons for rejecting application‑‑‑No contempt was found to have been committed as to warrant any action against respondent‑‑ Interference declined by Tribunal. Abubakar Saley Mayet v. Abbot Laboratories and another 1.987 C L C 367 ref. Applicant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Applicant in person. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1990 This is an application moved by the applicant Sibte Zahid Naqvi in which he has made several prayers. He has prayed that the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 20-10-1990 be revised and its legality, correctness and propriety may be considered. He has also requested the Tribunal to proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act against the learned Presiding Officer of the Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi as well as against the three officers of the K.E.S.C.
2. I have heard Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi, the applicant in this case. The contention of Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi before the learned Labour Court was that the Secretary of the K.E.S.C. who had engaged and authorised the Advocate to appear before the learned Labour Court had no powers to so engage the Advocate because the grievance application was filed against the K.E.S.C. through its Managing Director. He further contends that the Secretary and other officers of the K.E.S.C. by appearing and appointing the Advocate in Court had in fact interfered in the judicial process and, therefore, they had committed the Contempt of Court.
3. Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi, had relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court in the case of Abubakar Saley Mayet v. Abbot Laboratories and another reported in 1987 C L C 367; wherein it has been held that the company cannot orally authorise another person to sign a plaint on its behalf and even subsequent ratification would not cure illegality committed at time of institution of suit and the business of company/corporation has to be run under its Articles of Association. His Lordship had also considered the provision of Order XXIX, C.P.C and have held that it only authorises the person mentioned therein to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the Company.
4. In the instant case, the question at issue is whether the Secretary had the power to engage an Advocate. Under Article of Association produced by Mr. Sibte Zahid Naqvi, under Article 78(8), apart from the general powers conferred by Article 75, the Director has got powers to appoint legal practitioners for representing the company in legal proceedings. However, under Article 75, the Director has powers to depute such of his powers and duties as by the Act need not be performed personally, to the Managing Agents. However, it is a question of fact as to whether the Secretary was authorised to defend the grievance application and engage Advocate either by any resolution of Board of Directors or by rules 'or he has engaged Advocate on his own authority. This question can be decided in the final decision only after such issue is framed and after evidence is recorded by the learned Labour Court. At this stage, I find that the learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application of the applicant and I do not find it necessary to interfere with the said order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
5. I also do not find that any contempt of Court had been committed to warrant any action against the respondents. The application is, therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H./1797/Lb. S Appellant dismissed