1992 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS))
UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI Versus QALANDAR KHAN
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI Versus QALANDAR KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS))?
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 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS))?
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 PLP 1092 (PLC(CS)) (UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI Versus QALANDAR KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. De-Cruse for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1990.
- Heard Mr. Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. A. De-Cruse, Advocate for the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.38(3-a)
Documents exhibited by petitioner in case before Labour Court, were property of petitioner though temporarily they were in custody of the Court
Prayer by petitioner to return said documents was allowed with condition that a photocopy thereof duly attested by an authorised officer be kept on record
One photocopy of such documents was also allowed to be given to respondent on his request. Abdul Qadir for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
A. De-Cruse for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1990. Heard Mr. Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. A. De-Cruse, Advocate for the respondent.
2. By this Revision Application the applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 38 (3-a) of I.R.O., 1969 with the request that, the order of the learned Labour Court No IV at Karachi, passed on 25-1-1990 in Case No. 104 of 1988, may be examined for the purpose of finding whether it is legal, proper and correct.
3. It appears that in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, certain documents were filed by the applicants as on the application of the respondent, the learned Labour Court directed the applicants to file these documents. It also appears that the matter was disposed of by the learned Labour Court, but the order was set aside by this Tribunal and the case was remanded back to the Labour Court for further proceedings. The applicant moved the learned Labour Court for the return of the documents as he required the same for the purpose of cross-examination of the witnesses which prayer was refused vide impugned order.
4. The mart objections of Mr. A. De-Cruse, the learned counsel for the respondent are that the documents are not numbered and that some documents had not been produced and that if the documents are returned back to the applicant, some documents may be unidentifiable when again required in the Court or that they may be replaced by the some other documents. These objections can easily be met with by keeping the photocopies of the documents on the record duly attested by some authorised officer of the Court and also by the counsel for applicant.
5. The documents are in fact the property of the applicant though temporarily they are in the custody of the learned Labour Court. The request of the applicant does not appear to be unreasonable but the interests of respondents are also to be safeguarded. It is, therefore, ordered in the interest of justice, that the documents be returned to the applicant after list is prepared and are numbered. The photocopies be kept on record duly attested by the authorised officer of the learned Labour Court and also by the counsel for the applicant. The cost to be paid by the applicant. It is also further ordered that the original documents be made available in the Court at the time when the case proceeds in the Court.
6. Mr. De-Cruze further requests for supply of copies of the documents. It is order that the same be supplied to him if he bears the cost of the same.
7. The Revision Application is dispose of in the above terms. M.Y.H./1733/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.