1992 PLP 225 (PLC)
Present: Ahmed Alt U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal Versus MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD
| Citation | 1992 PLP 225 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Alt U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Present: Ahmed Alt U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal Versus MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 225 (PLC)?
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 225 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Alt 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 225 (PLC) (Present: Ahmed Alt U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal Versus MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmed Aiwan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A(8) & 38(3-A)
Disobeying order of Court--Revision, maintainability of
Workman filed complaint against employer for allegedly disobeying orders of Labour Court and Court issued notice to employer of such complaint
Order issuing notice to employer was clearly showing that Court had not yet taken cognizance of complaint of workman, but same was issued to employer simply to give him opportunity to put up his case if he so desired, but it was not obligatory for employer to appear before Court on that notice
Labour Court having not yet taken cognizance of the case and case having not even been formally brought on record, revision filed by employer against such order was premature-- Employer would be at liberty to file fresh revision application in case Labour Court decided to bring the case on record, and issued formal summons or warrants against him. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 25-A(8) & 38(3-A)
Disobeying order of Court--Revision, maintainability of
Workman filed complaint against employer for allegedly disobeying orders of Labour Court and Court issued notice to employer of such complaint
Order issuing notice to employer was clearly showing that Court had not yet taken cognizance of complaint of workman, but same was issued to employer simply to give him opportunity to put up his case if he so desired, but it was not obligatory for employer to appear before Court on that notice
Labour Court having not yet taken cognizance of the case and case having not even been formally brought on record, revision filed by employer against such order was premature-- Employer would be at liberty to file fresh revision application in case Labour Court decided to bring the case on record, and issued formal summons or warrants against him. Shabbir Ahmed Aiwan for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 10th August, 1991. It appears that the respondent had filed complaint under section 25-A(8) of IRO. 1969 against the applicant for allegedly disobeying the orders of the learned Labour Court. It further appears that learned Labour Court issued notice to the applicant. However the order of the learned Labour Court, which has been produced and impugned in this Revision Application shows that the Court has yet not taken the cognizance of complaint. Admittedly the statement of complainant /respondent under section 200, Cr.P.C. has not been recorded and the order under section 202, Cr.P.C. has not been passed. As such this notice appears to have been issued by the learned Labour Court to give opportunity to the applicant to put up his case if he so desired but it is not obligatory for the applicant to appear before the Court on this notice. As the learned Labour Court has not yet taken cognizance in the sense, that the summons or warrant for appearance to face the charges have .not been issued against the applicant and the case has not been formally brought on the record. This Revision Application would in the circumstances be premature and is dismissed as such.
2. The applicant would be at liberty to file fresh application if he so desires if the learned Labour Court decides to bring the case on record and issues the formal summons or warrants against the applicant. The learned Labour Court to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law, unprejudiced by its previous order. H.B.T./1955/Lb. S Application dismissed.