2008 PLP 140 (PLC)
Messrs NOUROZE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. through Manager Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT and another
| Citation | 2008 PLP 140 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed, J |
| Parties | Messrs NOUROZE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. through Manager Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 140 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 140 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 140 (PLC) (Messrs NOUROZE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. through Manager Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----S. 49(4)(e)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Unfair labour practice by the employer---Respondent filed complaint before Labour Court alleging that an offence of unfair labour practice had been committed by the employer who had allegedly violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 on which Labour Court issued notice to petitioner and the General Manager of the employer---Counsel for petitioner had contended that Labour Court had acted illegally and in violation of the law by directing the issuance of notice to the petitioner and directing the personal appearance of its General Manager, without application of its mind and due compliance of law including the recording of preliminary evidence---Impugned order revealed that Labour Court had treated the lis before it as a petition of civil nature and had proceeded thereupon mechanically without application of judicious mind---Petition before Labour Court was a criminal complaint and should have been dealt with as such and the procedure as provided by law was required to be adopted---Impugned order was set aside---Complaint of respondent would be deemed to be pending before Labour Court who would proceed de novo thereon strictly in accordance with law after due fulfilment of procedural requirements---Case was amended accordingly.
- Syed Abdul Razzaq Jillani and Riaz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.
- Zafar Ullah Khan Khakwani, Asstt. A.-G. for Respondent No.1.
- Rashid Rehman for Respondent No.2.
- 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 20-7-2007 passed by respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this constitutional petition are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before respondent No.1 alleging that an offence of unfair labour practice had been committed by the present petitioner who had allegedly violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (LR.O., 2002). The matter came up for hearing on 20-7-2007 when, inter alia, notice was issued to the present petitioner and the General Manager thereof was directed to appear in person by way of the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned respondent No.1 had acted illegally and in violation of the law by forthwith directing the issuance of notice to the present petitioner and directing the personal appearance of its General Manager without application of mind or due compliance including the recording of preliminary evidence.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
6. It is stated in the impugned order that it is a fresh petition; be registered; admit; whereafter notice was issued to the present petitioner whose General Manager was also directed to appear in person. It is clear and obvious from the said order that respondent No.1 treated the lis before it as a petition of civil nature and has proceeded thereupon mechanically. There is, no application of judicious mind. In the instant case, the petition filed before respondent No.1 was a criminal complaint and should have been dealt as such and the procedure as provided by law was required to be adopted. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The complaint of respondent No.2 shall deem to be pending before respondent No.1 who shall proceed de novo thereupon strictly' in accordance with law after due fulfilment of procedural requirements. This petition is accepted; case remanded-in the above terms. H.B.T./N-108/L Order accordingly.