2000 PLP 443 (PLC)
AHMED RAMZAN Versus MUHAMMAD HAMID
| Citation | 2000 PLP 443 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman |
| Parties | AHMED RAMZAN Versus MUHAMMAD HAMID |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 443 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 443 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 443 (PLC) (AHMED RAMZAN Versus MUHAMMAD HAMID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 36(2) & 38(3-a)---Summoning of witness---Application for summoning Advocate for respondent was rejected by Labour Court---Labour Court under S.36(2), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could grant application for summoning witness who was not a common man, but was an Advocate---Refusing to summon witness, if not illegality, but at least was an impropriety on part of Labour Court, especially when it was asserted by applicant that though he had withdrawn his case, but amount agreed to was not paid to him---Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction directed Labour Court to summon witness to examine on point in question.
- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 36(2) & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Summoning of witness‑‑‑Application for summoning Advocate for respondent was rejected by Labour Court‑‑‑Labour Court under S.36(2), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could grant application for summoning witness who was not a common man, but was an Advocate‑‑‑Refusing to summon witness, if not illegality, but at least was an impropriety on part of Labour Court, especially when it was asserted by applicant that though he had withdrawn his case, but amount agreed to was not paid to him‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction directed Labour Court to summon witness to examine on point in question.
- 2. Mr. Abdul Zubaid General Secretary of Hotel Mehran National Workers, Union registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, submits that he had made application for summoning Mr. Rafiullah who was advocate for the respondent. This application, for summoning Mr. Rafiullah, was refused by the learned Labour Court. Incidentally Mr. Rafiullah is present in this Tribunal in connection with another case. He sought my permission to make his submission and stated at the Bar that a cheque, issued by the respondent, to be paid to the applicant, after the case is withdrawn, is lying with him. The case was accordingly withdrawn. Mr., Rafiullah submits that his client had not contacted him. He further submits that he had referred the cheque to the applicant, but he refused to accept and insisted for cash.
- 3. I think the Court ought to have granted the application under section 36(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 for summaning Mr. Rafiullah and here I find, if not an illegality but at least an impropriety, in not summoning a witness, who is an advocate of the Court, not a common man. Particularly when it was asserted by the applicant that although he withdrew the case, but the amount was not paid to him. I, therefore, accept this revision application and direct the learned Labour Court to examine Mr. Rafiullah, Advocate, on the point in question, Mr. Rafiullah undertakes to appear before the learned Labour Court on 24‑11‑1999 for examination (no affidavit) and cross examination, if any in Court. Mr. Abdul Zubaid also will be present on that
Headnotes / Summary
Abdul Zubaid, Representative for Applicant. This is an application under subsection (3-a) of section 38 of the Industrial-Relations Ordinance, against the order dated 11-10-1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Sindh Labour Court No.5 at Karachi.
2. Mr. Abdul Zubaid General Secretary of Hotel Mehran National Workers, Union registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, submits that he had made application for summoning Mr. Rafiullah who was advocate for the respondent. This application, for summoning Mr. Rafiullah, was refused by the learned Labour Court. Incidentally Mr. Rafiullah is present in this Tribunal in connection with another case. He sought my permission to make his submission and stated at the Bar that a cheque, issued by the respondent, to be paid to the applicant, after the case is withdrawn, is lying with him. The case was accordingly withdrawn. Mr., Rafiullah submits that his client had not contacted him. He further submits that he had referred the cheque to the applicant, but he refused to accept and insisted for cash.
3. I think the Court ought to have granted the application under section 36(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 for summaning Mr. Rafiullah and here I find, if not an illegality but at least an impropriety, in not summoning a witness, who is an advocate of the Court, not a common man. Particularly when it was asserted by the applicant that although he withdrew the case, but the amount was not paid to him. I, therefore, accept this revision application and direct the learned Labour Court to examine Mr. Rafiullah, Advocate, on the point in question, Mr. Rafiullah undertakes to appear before the learned Labour Court on 24-11-1999 for examination (no affidavit) and cross examination, if any in Court. Mr. Abdul Zubaid also will be present on that
4. The revision application is allowed. Consequent upon the order passed in Revision Miscellaneous No.446 of 1999 for summoning Mr. Rafiullah, having become infructuous, is dismissed. H.B.T..457/K(L.Trib) Revision allowed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 36(2) & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Summoning of witness‑‑‑Application for summoning Advocate for respondent was rejected by Labour Court‑‑‑Labour Court under S.36(2), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could grant application for summoning witness who was not a common man, but was an Advocate‑‑‑Refusing to summon witness, if not illegality, but at least was an impropriety on part of Labour Court, especially when it was asserted by applicant that though he had withdrawn his case, but amount agreed to was not paid to him‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction directed Labour Court to summon witness to examine on point in question. Abdul Zubaid, Representative for Applicant. This is an application under subsection (3‑a) of section 38 of the Industrial‑Relations Ordinance, against the order dated 11‑10‑1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Sindh Labour Court No.5 at Karachi.
2. Mr. Abdul Zubaid General Secretary of Hotel Mehran National Workers, Union registered with the Registrar of Trade Unions, submits that he had made application for summoning Mr. Rafiullah who was advocate for the respondent. This application, for summoning Mr. Rafiullah, was refused by the learned Labour Court. Incidentally Mr. Rafiullah is present in this Tribunal in connection with another case. He sought my permission to make his submission and stated at the Bar that a cheque, issued by the respondent, to be paid to the applicant, after the case is withdrawn, is lying with him. The case was accordingly withdrawn. Mr., Rafiullah submits that his client had not contacted him. He further submits that he had referred the cheque to the applicant, but he refused to accept and insisted for cash.
3. I think the Court ought to have granted the application under section 36(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 for summaning Mr. Rafiullah and here I find, if not an illegality but at least an impropriety, in not summoning a witness, who is an advocate of the Court, not a common man. Particularly when it was asserted by the applicant that although he withdrew the case, but the amount was not paid to him. I, therefore, accept this revision application and direct the learned Labour Court to examine Mr. Rafiullah, Advocate, on the point in question, Mr. Rafiullah undertakes to appear before the learned Labour Court on 24‑11‑1999 for examination (no affidavit) and cross examination, if any in Court. Mr. Abdul Zubaid also will be present on that
4. The revision application is allowed. Consequent upon the order passed in Revision Miscellaneous No.446 of 1999 for summoning Mr. Rafiullah, having become infructuous, is dismissed. H.B.T..457/K(L.Trib) Revision allowed.