1988 PLP 421 (PLC)
Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J Messrs FAIZ TALKIES Versus CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION and others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 421 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J Messrs FAIZ TALKIES |
| Parties | Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J Messrs FAIZ TALKIES Versus CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 421 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 421 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J Messrs FAIZ TALKIES.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 421 (PLC) (Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J Messrs FAIZ TALKIES Versus CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Faizan ul Haq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.1(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & S.115‑ Rejection of plaint‑‑Registration of establisment under Act XIV of 1976‑‑Forum for deciding question of registration‑‑Civil Court's jurisdiction barred‑‑Forum for deciding question as to whether plaintiff was liable to be registered under Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act or not, being the respondent Authority, Civil Court, held, could not assume such jurisdiction‑‑Rejection of plaint relating to such matter was therefore, justified‑‑Revision against rejection of plaint would not be competent in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑5.115‑‑Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976), S.7(3)‑ Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Court feeling not competent to issue direction to Authority yet expressing its wish for the expeditious disposal of the case.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑5.115‑‑Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976), S.7(3)‑ Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Court feeling not competent to issue direction to Authority yet expressing its wish for the expeditious disposal of the case. Faizan ul Haq for Petitioner. This revision application is directed against the orders of the Civil Judge passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C:P.C. rejecting the plaint of the applicant and the second order of D.J. rejecting the appeal of the applicant on 1‑3‑
86. The applicant is a Cinema being run at Shahdadpur and the respondent No.2 had sought to register it under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976. The petitioner had taken exception to the same as it was not employing more than 8 employees. However, the respondent No.2 without any notice to the petitioner issued a demand notice for Rs.21,
000. The petitioner again objected to the same and also filed an appeal before the Manager, Board of, Trustees. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner also filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The said was resisted by the respondents and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. made and the plaint was rejected. The appeal of the applicant failed. Evidently the two orders appear to be eminently justified as the forum for deciding the question as to whether the plaintiff /applicant is liable to be registered under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act or not is obviously the respondent No.2 and the Civil Court cannot assume that jurisdiction. This revision application is therefore dismissed as incompetent. Mr. Faizanul Haq has, however, requested that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner before them. Although I am not competent in this revision to give direction of this sort sought by the petitioner but still I would E express a wish that if any appeal has been filed by the petitioner against its registration or demand of Deptt. then the same should be disposed of by the competent authority within a reasonable time as otherwise it would look very odd that the petitioner who is feeling aggrieved will not be having any relief from any person. A.A. /F‑37/ K Revision dismissed.