1987 PLP 469 (PLC)
SUI GAS (NORTHERN) and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI
| Citation | 1987 PLP 469 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdur Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SUI GAS (NORTHERN) and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 469 (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 1987 PLP 469 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdur Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 469 (PLC) (SUI GAS (NORTHERN) and others Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Pasha for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.56, 36 & 38(3‑A)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Trial before Labour Court under S.56‑‑Adjournment on request of employee for reasons of absence of co‑employee on payment of costs, held, was not warranted‑ Appellate Tribunal in revision accepting contention that in a criminal case no costs can be imposed and setting aside order of Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.56, 36 & 38(3‑A)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Trial before Labour Court under S.56‑‑Adjournment on request of employee for reasons of absence of co‑employee on payment of costs, held, was not warranted‑ Appellate Tribunal in revision accepting contention that in a criminal case no costs can be imposed and setting aside order of Labour Court. Khalid Pasha for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st October, 1986. The revision captioned above gives information that the order, dated 12‑1‑1986 imposing cost of Rs.1,000 is illegal and ultra vires.
2. The petitioners were summoned to stand trial under section 56 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On 12‑1‑1986 one of the petitioners namely, Aale Imran Raza had appeared but the remaining two petitioners were absent. On their behalf Mr. Niaz Ahmad, Assistant Supervisor, appeared without any authority letter. He sought adjournment to produce the remaining petitioners. The learned lower Court granted adjournment on the payment of Rs.1,000 as costs.
3. It has been argued that in a criminal case no costs can be imposed. Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code is clear on the point. This section presuppose that the accused is present and the hearing of the case is to be postponed for the absence of a witness or for any other reasonable ground. In the present case two of the accused were not present. If they had been duly served, then the proper thing was to issue bail able warrants against them. If they had already executed bail bonds, the same could have been cancelled and proceedings under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure started, but there was no justification to impose cost of Rs.1,000 which even otherwise are exorbitant.
4. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision of the remaining controversial points. A.E/261/Lb. Revision accepted.