2000 PLP 123 (PLC)
Manager Versus MUHAMMAD NIAZ
| Citation | 2000 PLP 123 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman |
| Parties | Manager Versus MUHAMMAD NIAZ |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 123 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 123 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 123 (PLC) (Manager Versus MUHAMMAD NIAZ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 38(3-a)
No illegality, impropriety or even incorrectness had been found in order passed by Labour Court on a miscellaneous application
Said order of Labour Court could not be interfered with by Labour Appellate Tribunal in revisional jurisdiction-- Revision application was dismissed being not maintainable. Muhammad Faruq Ghani for Applicant. This is a revision application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the order, dated 12-3-1999, passed on a miscellaneous application by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.1, Karachi. The order being very short, it seems beneficial to reproduce as under:-- ' " Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The evidence of the respondent's side had not yet started. The applicant has still not been cross-examined. The respondent side would be at liberty to produce any such document with the affidavit during its evidence. The present stage seems to be a premature stage for moving of this application for summoning the contractor. However, any such evidence may be summoned if the Court deems fit in the interest of justice; for the time being the respondent is required to cross-examine the applicant This application is accordingly disposed of. Announced in open Court. (Sd) (Akhtar Farooq) Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. 1, Karachi." I have heard Mr. Muhammad Farooq A. Ghani, learned counsel for the applicant- I find no illegality, impropriety or even incorrectness in the order, impugned before me in the revision application. Moreover, the evidence has not yet started. The practice of filing applications and on rejections, coming in revision in the Tribunal has become a fashion, which hampers the proceedings of the main case and disturbs the course of justice
3. As already observed by me in Revision Applications Nos. Kar-4 and Kar-5 of 1999 (Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. v. Muhammad Yaseen and Saeed Ghani). by my order, dated 17-5-1999, fragmentary applications of such nature are most inconvenient and tend to delay the administration of justice, as also held by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 53 and 54 of 1999 filed by Mohtarma Benazir Butto and her spouse, Asif Ali Zardari. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere to the impugned order. The revision application is dismissed in limine. 4.Miscellaneous Application No. 216 of 1999 having become infructuous also stands dismissed. H.B.T./322-K (L.Trib). Revision dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision application under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the order, dated 12‑3‑1999, passed on a miscellaneous application by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.1, Karachi. The order being very short, it seems beneficial to reproduce as under:‑‑ ' " Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The evidence of the respondent's side had not yet started. The applicant has still not been cross‑examined. The respondent side would be at liberty to produce any such document with the affidavit during its evidence. The present stage seems to be a premature stage for moving of this application for summoning the contractor. However, any such evidence may be summoned if the Court deems fit in the interest of justice; for the time being the respondent is required to cross‑examine the applicant This application is accordingly disposed of. Announced in open Court. (Sd) (Akhtar Farooq) Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. 1, Karachi." I have heard Mr. Muhammad Farooq A. Ghani, learned counsel for the applicant‑ I find no illegality, impropriety or even incorrectness in the order, impugned before me in the revision application. Moreover, the evidence has not yet started. The practice of filing applications and on rejections, coming in revision in the Tribunal has become a fashion, which hampers the proceedings of the main case and disturbs the course of justice
3. As already observed by me in Revision Applications Nos. Kar‑4 and Kar‑5 of 1999 (Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. v. Muhammad Yaseen and Saeed Ghani). by my order, dated 17‑5‑1999, fragmentary applications of such nature are most inconvenient and tend to delay the administration of justice, as also held by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 53 and 54 of 1999 filed by Mohtarma Benazir Butto and her spouse, Asif Ali Zardari. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere to the impugned order. The revision application is dismissed in limine. 4.Miscellaneous Application No. 216 of 1999 having become infructuous also stands dismissed. H.B.T./322‑K (L.Trib). Revision dismissed.