Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL QAYYUM VS Respondent: SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
2001 P L C 115
2001 P L C 115
[Karachi High Court]
Before Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ
ABDUL QAYYUM and 12 others
versus
SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others
Constitutional Petition No.D‑85 and Miscellaneous Application No.2195 of 2000, decided on 7th November, 2000.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 37(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑ Appeal‑‑‑Application fled by counsel for appellant for adjournment on ground that he was busy in High Court was dismissed by Labour Appellate Tribunal and proceeded with the appeal‑‑‑Appellants having been denied the right of hearing through their counsel, Constitutional petition was allowed and case was remanded to Labour Appellate Tribunal for re‑hearing after providing opportunity to counsel for appellants to put forward their case.
Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Petitioner.
ORDER
The contention of Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi is that the petitioners have been condemned unheard by the learned Appellate Tribunal inasmuch as Mr. Rafiullah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was busy before this Court and had submitted an application for adjournment but the learned Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal rejected the application and proceeded with the appeal. His submission is that the petitioners were not in a position to plead their case in a manner which could have been done by their counsel. As a result of which they have been made to suffer unjustly by depriving them of the right of personal hearing. The contention advanced by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi is borne out from the order of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal wherein in para.7 it has been stated that the arguments of the parties were heard and considered. That there is no denying the fact that the petitioners not being educated persons would not be in a position to argue their case before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in the same manner as could have been done by their Counsel and as a result thereof, we are satisfied that prejudice had been caused to the petitioners as their case could not be presented on its merits.
Mr. Tariq Nisar, Manager of Respondent No.3, is present and requests for time for engaging an Advocate but in view of the above observations we do not consider it necessary as we are of the view that the petitioners had been denied the right of hearing through their Advocate and, therefore, we intend to remand the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for rehearing after providing opportunity to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to put forward their case.
Accordingly, this Constitutional Petition is admitted to regular hearing and is allowed. The impugned order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 7‑12‑1999 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision after providing opportunity to both the parties to argue their case through counsel of their choice. Respondent No.3 (Mr. Tariq Nisar) is directed to appear before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on 20‑12‑2000. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi should inform the petitioners of the dates of hearing. No notices for appearance will be required to be issued by the Tribunal.
H.B.T./A‑97/K Order accordingly.