1988 PLP 990 (PLC(CS))
ALI ASGHAR Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION
| Citation | 1988 PLP 990 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ALI ASGHAR Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 990 (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 1988 PLP 990 (PLC(CS))?
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: 1988 PLP 990 (PLC(CS)) (ALI ASGHAR Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant.
- Kamal Mansur Alam and S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1988.
- 2. I have heard Messrs Kamal Mansoor Alam and S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the Management of Pakistan Steel and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. Mr. Mirza Muhammad. Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant has sent an application for an adjournment which has been rejected, therefore, I have heard the appellant in person. At the very outset, I would observe here that the first grievance petition No. 224 of 1983 making a subject matter of Appeal No. KAR 190/84, was disposed of by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman, ordering an enquiry to be held by the management of Pakistan Steel. So, an enquiry was held by the management of Pakistan Steel in which the workman did not participate and as such, he was dismissed from service. Therefore, the workman had moved his second grievance petition No. 9/1985, making the basis of Appeal No. KAR-73/1986 seeking therein his reinstatment in service by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant observing as under "Regarding rules of service, as contemplated under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code the Court is also of the view that strict rules of service as contemplated in the civil suit under the rules of Civil -Procedure Code cannot be strictly applicable regarding service. The Labour Court is deemed to be Civil Court and has the power to summon the witness as required in the I.R.O. if the Labour Court is satisfied that the applicant had the knowledge of the proceedings. This requirement can meet with the ends of justice. The spirit of the labour law is that application be disposed of within seven days. The application under section 25-A also appears, to the Court, to be of summary nature, if he has failed to appear for personal hearing. Requirement of justice are satisfied, if by his own conduct he remained indifferent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A--Grievance petition, adjudication of--Proceedings are of summary nature--Labour Court, if satisfied that petitioner had knowledge of proceedings and he failed to appear for personal hearing, it could dispose of petition.
Judgment & Decree
S. 25-A--Grievance petition, adjudication of--Proceedings are of summary nature--Labour Court, if satisfied that petitioner had knowledge of proceedings and he failed to appear for personal hearing, it could dispose of petition. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Kamal Mansur Alam and S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1988. DECISION These are two separate appeals filed by the appellant against two separate impugned orders, dated 30-7-1984 and 10-2-1986 respectively, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who, while in Appeal No. Kar-190/84 had allowed the grievance petition directing the reinstatement of the appellant and according an opportunity to the respondent establishment to hold fresh enquiry into the allegations-depending the payment of back benefits, on the result of the fresh enquiry, while, in Appeal No. 73/1986, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. As, in both these appeals the parties are same, the facts and circumstance of the case are one and similar, therefore, I would also decide both these appeals by this single decision. 2. I have heard Messrs Kamal Mansoor Alam and S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the Management of Pakistan Steel and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. Mr. Mirza Muhammad. Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant has sent an application for an adjournment which has been rejected, therefore, I have heard the appellant in person. At the very outset, I would observe here that the first grievance petition No. 224 of 1983 making a subject matter of Appeal No. KAR 190/84, was disposed of by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman, ordering an enquiry to be held by the management of Pakistan Steel. So, an enquiry was held by the management of Pakistan Steel in which the workman did not participate and as such, he was dismissed from service. Therefore, the workman had moved his second grievance petition No. 9/1985, making the basis of Appeal No. KAR-73/1986 seeking therein his reinstatment in service by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant observing as under "Regarding rules of service, as contemplated under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code the Court is also of the view that strict rules of service as contemplated in the civil suit under the rules of Civil -Procedure Code cannot be strictly applicable regarding service. The Labour Court is deemed to be Civil Court and has the power to summon the witness as required in the I.R.O. if the Labour Court is satisfied that the applicant had the knowledge of the proceedings. This requirement can meet with the ends of justice. The spirit of the labour law is that application be disposed of within seven days. The application under section 25-A also appears, to the Court, to be of summary nature, if he has failed to appear for personal hearing. Requirement of justice are satisfied, if by his own conduct he remained indifferent. Hence, these two appeals are hearby dismissed. A.E./1292/Lb.S. Appeals Dismissed.