1989 PLP 843 (PLC(CS))
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL
| Citation | 1989 PLP 843 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance min of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 843 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance min of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 843 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind 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: 1989 PLP 843 (PLC(CS)) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmed for Appellants.
- M.L. Shahani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1989.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.L. Shahani, Advocate for the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A(R), 36(2) & 38(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX1, R. 2‑‑ Execution or implementation of orders, of Labour Court or Appellate Tribunal‑ Procedure‑‑Provisions of OXXI, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 not applicable‑ Back benefits amount as per order of Labour Court deposited by employer with Appellate Tribunal‑‑Appeal dismissed‑‑Employer moving for stay of payment of amount to workman on ground that orders of Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal had been challenged by way of Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑Stay application contested on pica that Tribunal became functus officio after dismissal of appeal hence could not pass further stay order‑‑Plea upheld and opposite contention that Executing Court had power to stay execution proceedings under O.XXI, R. 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 hence Tribunal could pass stay order applied for, repelled‑‑Matter before High Court already fixed for hearing and order on same day‑‑Tribunal directing for release of payment on next day provided no stay order from High Court was received. Messrs Corning Class (Pak) Ltd. v. Muhammad Hanif and others Appeal No. KAR‑507 of 1979 (unreported) ref. National Construction Company (Pak.) Ltd. v. S. Waliur Rehman 1981 P L C 326 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Gulzar Ahmed for Appellants. M.L. Shahani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1989. The learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, allowed grievance petition of the respondent and ordered reinstatement with full back benefits. Appeal was filed against said order in this Tribunal and the payment of back benefits was stayed pending appeal but the appellant was directed to deposit the same in this Tribunal. The appeal was decided by decision dated 10‑1‑1989 while the appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned Labour Court was maintained. On the same date the respondent workman moved an application for the release of the amount of back benefits deposited by the appellant in the Tribunal which was ordered to be paid to him after due verification. Before the amount could be paid to the respondent the appellant moved application for stay of the payment of the same on the ground that they wanted to avail further remedy against the above decision. The interim stay was granted and notice was issued to the respondent.
2. I have heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.L. Shahani, Advocate for the respondent.
3. The contention of Mr. M.L. Shahani is that after the decision of the appeal this Tribunal became functus officio and could not pass any order staying the payment of back benefits to the respondent. In his support he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR. 507 of 1979 M/s. Corning Class (Pak.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Hanif and others where this Tribunal took the view that after announcement of the order it had become functus officio and could not stay the operation of the implementation of the decision or any part thereof. This view was followed by this Tribunal in the case of National Construction Company (Pak.) Ltd. v. S. Waliur Rehman (Appeal No. KAR‑340 of 1980) 1981 P L C 326.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, states that the appellant have filed Constitution petition in the High Court challenging the decision of this Tribunal and further stated that the Stay Application moved in the writ petition is fixed today for hearing and orders. He further contended that executing Courts have powers to stay execution proceedings, under Order XXI Rule 2, Cr.P.C.
5. It may be pointed out the Civil Procedure Code as a whole is not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Courts or the Tribunal. Under section 30(2) of the I.R.O., 1969, a Labour Court is deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure including powers of enforcing the attendance of any person, examining him on oath, compelling the production of documents and issuing commissions. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code would be applicable so far as they arc not repugnant to or in conflict with the provisions of the I.R.O. under which Labour Courts as well as this Tribunal has been established. Section 25‑A(8) impliedly provides for the procedure of the implementation of order of the Labour Court or of the Tribunal. It provides if the order or decision is not complied with within a week or within the time specified by the Labour Court or Tribunal the defaulter shall be punishable with imprisonment. Under this provision the duty is cast upon the employer or the person against whom the order is passed to immediately implement the order without waiting for further orders for execution from the Labour Court or this Tribunal failing which such person is liable to be prosecuted under the said provision. Thus, the procedure provided for execution of decrees of Civil Court is not applicable to the execution or implementation of the orders or decisions of the Labour Court or the Tribunal.
6. In view of the above legal and factual position I see no reason to disagree with the view taken earlier by this Tribunal. The interim stay is, therefore, vacated. However, in view of the fact that the matter is fixed before the High vacated for hearing and the orders today the payment be released to the respondent tomorrow unless Stay Order is received from the High Court. A.E./1380/Lb.S Stay order refused.