1995 PLP 561 (PLC)
GENERAL MANAGER, LEIAH SUGAR MILLS, LEIAH Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN
| Citation | 1995 PLP 561 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER, LEIAH SUGAR MILLS, LEIAH Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 561 (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 1995 PLP 561 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 561 (PLC) (GENERAL MANAGER, LEIAH SUGAR MILLS, LEIAH Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioner.
- Maqbool Anees for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Practice and procedure ‑‑‑Costs, award of‑‑ Should always be reasonable‑‑‑Grievance petition dismissed in default and restoration application not yet decided‑‑‑Labour Court burdening respondent with costs of Rs.1,000 for failure to produce record summoned by it‑‑‑Calling of record at that stage, held, absolutely was unnecessary and otherwise costs of Rs.1,000 are excessive‑‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Petitioner. Maqbool Anees for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4‑8‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the petitioner was burdened with costs of Rs.1,000 is wrong and improper. The reason for which the petitioner was burdened with costs is that the record was summoned which was not produced on the plea that it was with the learned counsel for the petitioner who had left for Islamabad.
2. The grievance petition of the respondent was dismissed in default on 10‑6‑1985 and an application for the restoration of the same had been made on 27‑6‑1985. The said petition was still pending and the grievance petition had not yet been restored when the learned lower Court directed the petitioner to produce the record. Needless to say that the record required by the respondent was to be produced in support of his grievance petition and before the grievance petition had been restored, there was absolutely no necessity of calling the record. So, if record had not been produced, there was no justification to impose costs. The learned lower Court missed to consider this aspect of the case and thus wrongly imposed costs. Even otherwise costs of Rs.1,000 are excessive. Costs always should be reasonable.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. A.E./210/Lb.P Revision accepted.