1992 PLC 356 (PLP)
SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI Versus BIRD SINDH LABOUR COURT through Presiding Officer and 4 others
| Citation | 1992 PLC 356 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI Versus BIRD SINDH LABOUR COURT through Presiding Officer and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLC 356 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLC 356 (PLP)?
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: 1992 PLC 356 (PLP) (SIBTE ZAHID NAQVI Versus BIRD SINDH LABOUR COURT through Presiding Officer and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Izzat Puri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 38(5)
Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926), S.3
Workman who had been removed from service about 10/11 years back, had entered into litigation with his employer against his removal. in various forums
Workman in his application addressed to Prime Minister and to another political leader had simply complained about delay in disposal of his case because of Presiding Officer of Labour Court being on leave
Intention of workman was not to hold judicial process or judicial Tribunals in contempt, but he had expressed his disappointment and frustration due to long delay in getting relief
In case workman had made some objectionable remarks against management of employer, such remarks, if any, would not call for any action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, but could give cause of action to management to seek relief in competent forum
Notice issued to workman with regard to application for contempt of Court on behalf of employer, was discharged in circumstances. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. Izzat Puri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1991. This is an application moved by the applicant K.E.S.C. for proceeding against the respondent under section 38(5) of I.R.O., 1969 read with section 3 of Contempt of Court Act for allegedly committing contempt of Labour Court at Karachi. The main ground for moving this application is a computerised application addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and a copy of which was sent to Mr. Altaf Hussain. The respondent admittedly moved this application.
2. I have gone though this application minutely and find that the applicant has complained about delay in the disposal of his case, because of the Presiding Officer of Labour Court proceeding on leave. He has also made certain general remarks about the delay and also commented upon the attitude of Government in granting leave to the Presiding Officer without making any alternate arrangement. It appears that the respondent had been removed from service about 10/11 years back and he had entered into litigation as against his removal in various forums. On the reading and going through the application and his reply statement, there does not appear to be any intention to hold the judicial process or judicial Tribunals in contempt but it expresses his disappointment and frustration due to long delay in getting relief.
3. In the application it is further alleged that he had made some objectionable remarks against the management of K.E.S.C. Such remarks if any do not call for any action under Contempt of Court Act but may give cause of action if any to the management to seek relief in competent forum.
4. Considering all the relevant documents and papers, in my view, there is no necessity for proceeding further under Contempt of Court Act. The notice to the respondent is discharged. H.B.T./1967/Lb.S Notice discharged.