1996PLC 619 (PLP)
SEARLE PAKISTAN LIMITED, S.I.T.E., KARACHI Versus NIGHAT MATEEN and another
| Citation | 1996PLC 619 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SEARLE PAKISTAN LIMITED, S.I.T.E., KARACHI Versus NIGHAT MATEEN and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996PLC 619 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996PLC 619 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996PLC 619 (PLP) (SEARLE PAKISTAN LIMITED, S.I.T.E., KARACHI Versus NIGHAT MATEEN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A, 36(2) & 38(3-a)
Employer who had not filed enquiry report and enquiry proceedings in Labour Court at the very outset, submitted those documents with additional affidavit at late stage but Labour Court disallowed to bring such additional evidence on record holding that under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 same should have been produced at the initial stage before final hearing of the case
Held, for the purpose of deciding labour Cases, restrictions mentioned in Civil Procedure Code and other technicalities and formalities were not applicable but Labour Courts had much wider powers to go beyond the rules of procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code and exercise such powers as may be found reasonable, just and proper for adjudication of the dispute
Since consideration of enquiry report and perusal of the proceedings were useful and even necessary for adjudication of dispute, Labour Court should have allowed evidence even at the late stage for doing complete Justice instead of rejecting such evidence on technical grounds. 1973 PLC 111 ref. Mehmood A. Ghani for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majeed, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1996. These are two Revision Applications arising from Interlocutory orders of the Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi disallowing to bring certain additional evidence on record with the supplementary affidavits on the ground that the evidence should have been produced with the main affidavit at the initial stage. This has been ordered on the basis of Civil Procedure Code relating to filing of documents in the suits.
2. The facts in brief are that respondents Nighat Mateen and Jamshed Iqbal were the employees of applicant Pharmaceutical company. Nighat Mateen was a checker while Jamshed Iqbal was a Security Guard. Nighat Mateen was charged for non‑compliance of instructions and Jamshed lqbal ‑was charged with riotous and disorderly behaviour. Since the matter is pending I would not go into the details nor express any opinion on merits.
3. It is the case of Mr. Mehmood. A. Ghani for the applicants that in spite of repeated notices the respondents did not associate themselves with the enquiries and they were conducted ex parte against them. That afterwards they were dismissed from service.
4. The point of law involved is whether Civil Procedure Code is strictly applicable to proceedings under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. In these cases Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani for the Pharmaceutical Company had not filed the Enquiry Report and the enquiry proceedings in the Court at the very outset but had submitted these documents with Additional Affidavit at a late stage. The learned labour Court was of opinion that under the C.P.C. list of documents and list of witness had to be filed before the final hearing of the case for evidence as such these documents c t be accepted after recording of evidence
5. It has been argued by Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani that section 36(2) of the I.R.O does not invest the Labour Court with all the powers of a Civil Court but only such powers as are necessary for completing the trial namely summoning and examining witnesses on oath, compelling production of documents. Issuing commission for examination of witnesses and such other powers as are similar to the powers mentioned and which are ejusdem generis, i.e. of the same nature. A decision of Sindh Labour Court in the case of Brooke Bond Limited 1973 PLC 111 and an unreported decision of this Tribunal have been quoted. There are also rulings that for the purpose of deciding the labour cases the restrictions mentioned in the Civil Procedure Code and other technicalities and formalities are not applicable to the labour cases but the Labour Courts have much wider powers to go beyond the rules of procedure in the C.P.C. and exercise such powers as may be found reasonable just and proper for adjudication of the dispute.
6. Since the consideration of the Enquiry Report and perusal of the proceedings are useful and even necessary for adjudication of this dispute, the learned Labour Court should have allowed the evidence even at the late stage for doing complete justice in these two cases instead of rejecting such evidence for l merely on technical grounds.
7. Both the Revision Applications are accordingly allowed to this extent and the cases are remanded to the Labour Court for expeditious disposal of the disputes. H.B.T./44/Lb.S Revision application allowed.