1977 PLP 639 (PLC)
WORKERS' UNION Versus MESSRS EJAZ BROTHERS CANVAS INDUSTRY, LAHORE
| Citation | 1977 PLP 639 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | 1st Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WORKERS' UNION Versus MESSRS EJAZ BROTHERS CANVAS INDUSTRY, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 639 (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 1977 PLP 639 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the 1st Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 639 (PLC) (WORKERS' UNION Versus MESSRS EJAZ BROTHERS CANVAS INDUSTRY, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naeem Sultan Butt for Petitioner.
- Rana A. Hamid for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 34 & 45‑Preliminary objections to petition not raised previously‑Cannot be raised in reply statement with regard to amend ed petition without permission of Court.
Judgment & Decree
Naeem Sultan Butt for Petitioner. Rana A. Hamid for Respondent. By my order dated 9th October, 1975 the petitioner‑Union was allowed to amend the application under sections 34‑45 of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 filed against the respondent so as to substitute the name of Muhammad Attique for that of Muhammad Riaz as General Secretary of the petitioner‑Union.
2. The amended petition was filed by the petitioner‑Union on 18th October 1975.
3. The respondent i.e. the employer was afforded with an opportunity to file reply statements to the amended petition.
4. The respondent filed reply statement on 18thDecember 1975 raising number of preliminary objections which were not previously raised and for which no permission was allowed to the respondent.
5. The petitioner‑Union accordingly filed an application stating that the respondent has made authorised amendments in the reply statement and that the same might be deleted.
6. This application of the petitioner‑Union has been opposed by the respondent and the same is sought to be disposed of by this order.
7. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties at length for the disposal of under‑consideration application. As already stated, in the reply statement filed on 18th December 1975 the respondent has raised number of preliminary objections: These objections have certainly no relevancy to the amendment made by the petitioner-Union in the amended petition. For these newly raised preliminary objections no permission of the Court has been sought. It is true that the newly raised preliminary objections are of legal nature but for raising such objections it was incumbent upon the respondent to obtain permission for amendment of the written statement so as to raise such objections. No such permission has been sought and in these circum stances the newly raised objections are to be deemed as unauthorised ones. The respondent is accordingly directed to delete such unauthorised objections and to file fresh reply statements which should be confined to the pleadings already contained in previously filed reply statements. The additional plea can only be raised due to the amendment contained in the amended petition filed on 18th October 1975. Such reply statement shall be filed on 8th April 1975.