1988 PLP 163 (PLC)
Present: A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer Versus GENERAL MANAGER, B.M.D PAKISTAN STEEL and 3 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 163 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IV th Labour Court Sind |
| Bench Members | A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | Present: A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer Versus GENERAL MANAGER, B.M.D PAKISTAN STEEL and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 163 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 163 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IV th Labour Court Sind bench comprising: A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 163 (PLC) (Present: A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer Versus GENERAL MANAGER, B.M.D PAKISTAN STEEL and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Yakoob for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.55 read with S. 13(b)‑‑Complaint before Labour Court‑ Competency of‑‑Complaint can be filed directly before Labour Court without express authorization by Registrar. 1987 SCMR 37 rel. S. P. Lodhi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
The Court had not admitted the matter but placed the question of law for the parties to argue, whether the complaint can come directly in the Labour Court to file criminal complaint for seeking prosecution of the respondent without the express authorization of the Registrar, in view of the application of section 13 IRO. Clause‑b, was under the concept at the time of admission that the words used violation of any provision of this Ordinance, means it is only the functionary, who was properly authority to lodge the complaint or give authorization to any person to lodge complaint, in respect of the classified functions.
2. Mr. Lodhi, counsel on behalf of the complainant has referred to the highest legal pronouncement, in the case of Muhammad Akram v. Sind Second Labour Court that the Labour Court can take cognizance of the complaint of person even without the authority of the Registrar.
3. I respectfully refer the observations of my lords the honourable judges of the Supreme Court: Monthly Review 1987, P. 37. "Section 13 is concerned only with the powers of the Registrar under the IRO. It purports to control him alone and not the Labour Court. Merely because it is one of the functions and he has been empowered to lodge or authorize any person to lodge complaint with the Labour Court, does not necessarily operate as a clog on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to take cognizance on the complaint of any other person."
4. His lordships, in the above decision also made the reference of section 35(5‑c) and section 36(3) in that context.
5. In view of the highest judicial pronouncement, the complaint is admitted that complainant has the jurisdiction to come before the Labour Court. Accordingly, he should be present for his statement under section 200 Cr. P. C., for further proceedings in the matter, where after the statements are recorded, the Court has to examine other legal issues on the point so concerned regarding applicability of section 249‑A Criminal Procedure Code and to find out whether it is a fit case for taking cognizance against the accused to face the trial. A./992/Lb.S Complaint admitted.