Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAIZ TALKIES VS Respondent: CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION
1988 P L C 421
1988 P L C 421
[Karachi High Court]
Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J Messrs FAIZ TALKIES
Versus
CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION and others
Revision Application No:179 of 1986, decided on 26th May, 1987.
(a) Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.1(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & S.115‑ Rejection of plaint‑‑Registration of establisment under Act XIV of 1976‑‑Forum for deciding question of registration‑‑Civil Court's jurisdiction barred‑‑Forum for deciding question as to whether plaintiff was liable to be registered under Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act or not, being the respondent Authority, Civil Court, held, could not assume such jurisdiction‑‑Rejection of plaint relating to such matter was therefore, justified‑‑Revision against rejection of plaint would not be competent in circumstances.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑5.115‑‑Employees' Old‑Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976), S.7(3)‑ Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Court feeling not competent to issue direction to Authority yet expressing its wish for the expeditious disposal of the case.
Faizan ul Haq for Petitioner.
ORDER
This revision application is directed against the orders of the Civil Judge passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C:P.C. rejecting the plaint of the applicant and the second order of D.J. rejecting the appeal of the applicant on 1‑3‑86.
The applicant is a Cinema being run at Shahdadpur and the respondent No.2 had sought to register it under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976. The petitioner had taken exception to the same as it was not employing more than 8 employees. However, the respondent No.2 without any notice to the petitioner issued a demand notice for Rs.21,000. The petitioner again objected to the same and also filed an appeal before the Manager, Board of, Trustees. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner also filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The said was resisted by the respondents and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. made and the plaint was rejected. The appeal of the applicant failed.
Evidently the two orders appear to be eminently justified as the forum for deciding the question as to whether the plaintiff /applicant is liable to be registered under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act or not is obviously the respondent No.2 and the Civil Court cannot assume that jurisdiction. This revision application is therefore dismissed as incompetent.
Mr. Faizanul Haq has, however, requested that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner before them. Although I am not competent in this revision to give direction of this sort sought by the petitioner but still I would E express a wish that if any appeal has been filed by the petitioner against its registration or demand of Deptt. then the same should be disposed of by the competent authority within a reasonable time as otherwise it would look very odd that the petitioner who is feeling aggrieved will not be having any relief from any person.
A.A. /F‑37/ K Revision dismissed.