1996 PLP 207 (PLC)
M/s. METAL CONTAINERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus METAL CONTAINERS EMPLOYEES' UNION through
| Citation | 1996 PLP 207 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. METAL CONTAINERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus METAL CONTAINERS EMPLOYEES' UNION through |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 207 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 207 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 207 (PLC) (M/s. METAL CONTAINERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus METAL CONTAINERS EMPLOYEES' UNION through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 36
Labour Court under S. 36(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was deemed to be a Civil Court and could exercise powers vested in Civil Court such as enforcing attendance of any person, compelling production of documents and issuing commission
Labour Court, thus, was not vested with all powers of a Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code, but only with procedural powers required for adjudication and determination of industrial dispute
Labour Court could also not issue any temporary injunction. Abdul Razzak v. Divisional Mechanical Engineer 1981 PLC 737 ref. Muhammad Humayun for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Razzak v. Divisional Mechanical Engineer 1981 PLC 737 ref. Muhammad Humayun for Applicant. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1995. Heard Mr. Muhammad Humayun for the applicant Management and Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for the respondent. Pre‑admission notice had been issued in this case for hearing the other side before passing any orders on the Revision Application.
2. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has explained that the Management had staged a lock‑out and laid off 22 workers which was the total number of workers employed in the factory. For this action permission of the Labour Court had not been obtained and the lock‑out and lay off were illegal. The workers, therefore, filed a petition under section 45 of the I.R.O. for prohibition of lock‑out. Pending the proceedings the Management through Mr. Muhammad Humayun has filed a Revision Application against the order of the Labour Court because an application for dismissal of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 was rejected by the Labour Court; the ground urged is that this Interim application under Order 7, Rule 11 should have been granted and this was an illegality committed by the Labour Court. The legal position in this regard has been sufficiently established that Labour Court is not vested with all the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code but only with procedural powers required for adjudication and determination of industrial dispute. Nor can the Labour Court issue any temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction as held in 1981 PLC 737 by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Abdul Razzak v. Divisional Mechanical Engineer. Under section 36(2) of the I.R.O. Labour Court is deemed to be a Civil Court and can exercise powers vested in the Civil Court such as enforcing attendance of any person compelling production of documents issuing commissions etc. This clearly shows that the Labour Court can exercise only such procedural powers as per Rule of Interpretation defined in the Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes. The other powers not mentioned should be of the same nature or ejusdene generis and it does not mean that the Labour Court can exercise all the powers of Civil Court. It is only the powers falling under a class as enumerated and cannot include the powers under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. regarding dismissal of plaint under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. regarding issue of injunction.
3. The Revision Application filed by Mr. Muhammad Humayun, is therefore, not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2533/Lb.S Revision application dismissed.