1991 PLP 524 (PLC(CS))
QALANDAR KHAN Versus Messrs UNION COLD STORAGE CO., LTD.
| Citation | 1991 PLP 524 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | QALANDAR KHAN Versus Messrs UNION COLD STORAGE CO., LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 524 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 524 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 524 (PLC(CS)) (QALANDAR KHAN Versus Messrs UNION COLD STORAGE CO., LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1989.
- 2. I have heard Mr. A DeCruz, learned Advocate for the applicant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXI, & OXII‑‑‑Production of record‑‑‑No application for discovery of documents on oath‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Contention that Labour Court had failed to use coercive measures to compel respondent to produce documents‑‑‑Neither petitioner had moved an application under O. XI & O. XII, C.P.C. for discovery of documents on oath nor orders were passed by Labour Court directing respondent to discover documents on oath‑‑‑No coercive measures could, therefore, be taken against respondent‑‑‑Such powers are to be exercised by Court in its discretion‑‑ ‑No illegality had thus been done by Labour Court in not ordering any coercive measures against respondent to produce documents. A. DeCruz for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
A. DeCruz for Applicant. Date of hearing: 9th October, 1989. This is an application under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, invoking the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal to call for R & P of grievance Application No. 104 of 1988, pending before the learned Sindh Labour Court No. IV, at Karachi, order to consider the legality and the propriety of the order, dated 1‑11‑1988, passed by the learned Presiding Officer.
2. I have heard Mr. A DeCruz, learned Advocate for the applicant.
3. It appears that the applicant had moved an application before the learned Labour Court to direct the respondents to produce certain documents. The learned Labour Court passed the order but the‑ documents were not produced by the respondents. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Labour Court has failed to use coercive measures to compel the respondents to produce documents. Under Order 11 Rule 12, C.P.C. the consequences of the non‑compliance of the order of discovery on oath is provided. It appears that neither the applicant has moved an application under Orders 11 and 12, C.P.C. for the discovery of the documents on oath nor the orders were passed by the learned Labour Court directing the respondents to discover the documents on oath. It was an application merely for production of the documents. Under Order 16, Rule 6, C.P.C., any person may be summoned to produce a document, but no such application appears to have been made for summoning the respondents to produce the documents. Consequently no coercive measure, as provided under this Order could be taken against the respondents. Besides these powers are exercised by the Court in its discretion. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the application in limine. M.Y.H./1564/Lb.S Petition dismissed.