1987 PLP 132 (PLC)
NAZMUDDIN Versus THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT and another
| Citation | 1987 PLP 132 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NAZMUDDIN Versus THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 132 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 132 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 132 (PLC) (NAZMUDDIN Versus THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khadim Hussain for Respondents.
- This is a case based on a complaint under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The preliminary enquiry was held and thereafter, summons were issued to the accused. The accused appeared along with the Advocate. Thereafter complainant remained absent on 21‑9‑1985, 6‑10‑1985 and 9‑10‑1985. The Court below, therefore, dismissed the case in default and non‑prosecution on 9‑10‑1985. On 16‑10‑1985, the Advocate filed for restoration of the complaint which on 9‑10‑1985. The learned Advocate of the complainant the Court below that the absence of the complainant was for the reasons beyond his control and according to the learned counsel the complainant has given affidavit and, therefore, complaint may be restored as it was dismissed in default.
- 2. This revision petition is filed by Mr. Nanji and as suo motu I have entertained it. The contention of Mr. Shaukat Ali A. Nanji is that complaint dismissed under section 247, Cr.P.C. the non‑appearance of the complainant and the dismissal of the complainant amounts to an acquittal and, therefore, it cannot be restored. The other Advocate, Mr. Khadim Hussain raises h plea that this dismissal is not under A section 247, Cr.P.C. as the violation of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, does not amount to a crime which is controlled by Criminal Procedure Code. Section 247, Cr.P.C., therefore, not applicable with its consequential nature of acquittal is not relevant in this case. It was contended that it was direct complaint of quasi‑criminal nature and it was dismissed in absence of the complaint and it was restored by the Labour Court. Mr. Khadim Hussain further referred to me to a case reported in P L D 1972 AJ&K 58, and to another case reported in A I R 1958 Pat. 239, where the law is discussed with regard to section 247, Cr.P.C. but since the instant case is quasi‑criminal in nature, that is it deals with violation of certain clauses of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and it carries nominal punishment of Rs.50 as fine, this case could not come within the purview of Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Shaukat Ali A. Nanji for Applicant. Khadim Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th April, 1986. This is a case based on a complaint under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The preliminary enquiry was held and thereafter, summons were issued to the accused. The accused appeared along with the Advocate. Thereafter complainant remained absent on 21‑9‑1985, 6‑10‑1985 and 9‑10‑1985. The Court below, therefore, dismissed the case in default and non‑prosecution on 9‑10‑1985. On 16‑10‑1985, the Advocate filed for restoration of the complaint which on 9‑10‑1985. The learned Advocate of the complainant the Court below that the absence of the complainant was for the reasons beyond his control and according to the learned counsel the complainant has given affidavit and, therefore, complaint may be restored as it was dismissed in default.
2. This revision petition is filed by Mr. Nanji and as suo motu I have entertained it. The contention of Mr. Shaukat Ali A. Nanji is that complaint dismissed under section 247, Cr.P.C. the non‑appearance of the complainant and the dismissal of the complainant amounts to an acquittal and, therefore, it cannot be restored. The other Advocate, Mr. Khadim Hussain raises h plea that this dismissal is not under A section 247, Cr.P.C. as the violation of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, does not amount to a crime which is controlled by Criminal Procedure Code. Section 247, Cr.P.C., therefore, not applicable with its consequential nature of acquittal is not relevant in this case. It was contended that it was direct complaint of quasi‑criminal nature and it was dismissed in absence of the complaint and it was restored by the Labour Court. Mr. Khadim Hussain further referred to me to a case reported in P L D 1972 AJ&K 58, and to another case reported in A I R 1958 Pat. 239, where the law is discussed with regard to section 247, Cr.P.C. but since the instant case is quasi‑criminal in nature, that is it deals with violation of certain clauses of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and it carries nominal punishment of Rs.50 as fine, this case could not come within the purview of Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Shaukat Ali A. Nanji refers to "as nearly as possible" and states that Criminal Procedure Code does operate and as such the non‑attendance of the complainant on the date of hearing culminates in an acquittal of the accused. Therefore, the restoration of the complaint I was not proper. It was an acquittal for all purposes of the Law. Further, following quotation is cited by Mr. Nanji: ‑ Subjected to the provisions of the Ordinance, while trying an offence, a Labour Court shall follow as nearly as possible summary, procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
4. This suo motu revision application is decided accordingly, and section 247, Cr.P.C. is applicable. A. E. Orders accordingly.