1999 PLP 440 (PLC)
through Manager Admin. & Notified Factory Manager Versus JAHANZEB
| Citation | 1999 PLP 440 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman |
| Parties | through Manager Admin. & Notified Factory Manager Versus JAHANZEB |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 440 (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 1999 PLP 440 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 440 (PLC) (through Manager Admin. & Notified Factory Manager Versus JAHANZEB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafiq Qureshi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A, 38(3-a) & 56
Pendency of grievance petition and complaint-- Proper procedure
Both grievance petition and complaint under S.56, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were pending before Labour Court and complaint was fixed and on every fixed date no proceedings were held but it was insisted that accused be present on each and every date
Validity-- Proper course, in circumstances, would be to first decide grievance petition on merits after allowing full opportunity to both parties and then to take up hearing of complaint under S.56, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 after issuance of proper notice, giving reasons for resorting to intended action under said section and fixing date for hearing of same for appearance of accused
Appellate Tribunal ordered that complaint under S.56 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 be adjourned sine die which could be taken up after decision on application under S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Mahmood A. Ghani for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Shafiq Qureshi for Respondent. This is a revision. MY attention is drawn to a consent order passed by this Tribunal in Revision Application No.KAR‑391 of 1998. Referring to clause (3), para. 4 thereof, it was agreed by both the counsel that, "the complaint of the respondent under section 56, of I.R.O. 1969, dated 4‑1 1‑1997 will be taken up after the decision on the main case".
2. It is, therefore, apparent that the above said complaint was to be taken up after the decision on the main case. I am informed that the complaint under section 56 is fixed on every date of hearing, of course, with no proceeding, but with the insistence that the accused be present on each and every date, fixed therein. According to Mr. Mahmood Ghani, it is mis use of powers of the Court.
3. When the learned Presiding Officer is very well‑aware that no proceedings can be taken up in the complaint at all why the accused is insisted upon to be present on every date.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties at some length. I am of the view that it is no use fixing the complaint under section 56 alongwith the application under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O., 1969. The proper course, in my view, would be to first decide the application under section 25‑A, I.R.O., on merits after allowing full opportunity to both the parties and if at all, after hearing, the learned Presiding Officer comes to the conclusion, prima facie, that the accused has wilfully made in any application or other document submitted under this Ordinance or the rules there under any statement which he knew or had reason to believe to be false, the learned Presiding Officer may take up the hearing of the complaint under section 56, after issuance of the proper notice, giving the reason for resorting to intended action under section 56 and fixing a date for hearing of the same for appearance of the accused.
5. Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint under section 56, of the I.R.O., 1969 will now be adjourned sine die and may be taken up after the decision on application under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O., 1969.
6. Since there will be vacations of the Labour Courts from 1‑6‑1999, it will be appreciated, if the application under section 25‑A, of I.R.O., 1969 is decided latest by 3i‑7‑1999, so as to enable the learned Presiding Officer to take up the application under section 56 of I.R.O., 1969 thereafter.
7. The revision application is disposed of accordingly. Announced in open Court this the 21st day of May, 1999. H.B.T./283/K/LX‑(Trib.) Order accordingly.