1991 PLP 447 (PLC)
Present: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD ASHFAOUDDIN SIDDIOUI Versus Messrs SIEMEN PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. and another
| Citation | 1991 PLP 447 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD ASHFAOUDDIN SIDDIOUI |
| Parties | Present: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD ASHFAOUDDIN SIDDIOUI Versus Messrs SIEMEN PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (KXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 447 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (KXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 447 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD ASHFAOUDDIN SIDDIOUI.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 447 (PLC) (Present: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD ASHFAOUDDIN SIDDIOUI Versus Messrs SIEMEN PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1989.
- 2. I have heard Mr. M.M. Jeellani, learned Advocate for the applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.38(3‑a)‑‑‑Production of document‑‑‑Respondents moved application for referring documents to Handwriting Expert but no order was passed by Labour Court, either allowing application or dismissing same‑‑‑After evidence was recorded at time, of argument Presiding Officer ordered to send documents to Handwriting Expert‑‑‑No order of Labour Court dismissing application existed if during course of arguments Presiding Officer considered it necessary to have documents examined by Handwriting Expert for purpose of fair and proper adjudication of case‑‑‑In absence of positive statement of respondent giving up application, there was, held, no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness to warrant interference by Appellate Tribunal. M.M. Jeellani for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
S.38(3-a)
Respondents moved application for referring documents to Handwriting Expert but no order was passed by Labour Court, either allowing application or dismissing same
After evidence was recorded at time, of argument Presiding Officer ordered to send documents to Handwriting Expert
No order of Labour Court dismissing application existed if during course of arguments Presiding Officer considered it necessary to have documents examined by Handwriting Expert for purpose of fair and proper adjudication of case
In absence of positive statement of respondent giving up application, there was, held, no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness to warrant interference by Appellate Tribunal. M.M. Jeellani for Applicant. Date of hearing: 5th November, 1989. This is an application wherein the applicant had invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 38 (3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969, laying information before this Tribunal and praying that R&Ps of Grievance Application No. 233 of 1985, pending in the Sindh Labour Court No.III, be called and the legality, propriety and the correctness of the order of the learned Presiding Officer, dated 18-10-1989 be examined.
2. I have heard Mr. M.M. Jeellani, learned Advocate for the applicant.
3. It appears that in the case in question some documents relied upon by the respondents are disputed. It appears that on 9-3-1986 the respondent had moved for referring the said documents to the Handwriting Expert but no order appears to have been passed by the learned Presiding Officer either allowing application or dismissing it. It also appears that after evidence was recorded at the time of arguments this fact was pointed out to the learned Presiding Officer who than ordered by the impunged order to send the said documents to the Handwriting Expert. The only ground raised by Mr. M.M. Jeellani is that by not pressing their application for such long a time the respondent would be deemed to have given up their application and, therefore, they led evidence by examining three witnesses.
4. As there was no order passed by the learned Labour Court dismissing the application and no positive statement of respondents giving up the application, if during the course of arguments the learned Presiding Officer considered it necessary to have the documents examined by Handwriting Expert for the purpose of fair and proper adjudication of the case, there appears to be no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order to warrant interference by this Tribunal. Suo motu application is, therefore, dismissed in limine. However, both the parties will have right to lead further evidence, if they so desire, after the receipt of expert's opinion. M.Y.H./1590/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.