Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOUROZE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. through Manager VS Respondent: PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURTHonorable Justice Sh. Azmat SaeedSyed Abdul Razzaq Jillani and Riaz-ul-Hassan,Zafar Ullah Khan Khakwani
2008 P L C 140
2008 P L C 140
[Lahore High Court]
Before Sh. Azmat Saeed, J
Messrs NOUROZE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. through Manager
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT and another
Writ Petition No.4002 of 2007, heard on 24th September, 2007.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---
----S. 49(4)(e)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Unfair labour practice by the employer---Respondent filed complaint before Labour Court alleging that an offence of unfair labour practice had been committed by the employer who had allegedly violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 on which Labour Court issued notice to petitioner and the General Manager of the employer---Counsel for petitioner had contended that Labour Court had acted illegally and in violation of the law by directing the issuance of notice to the petitioner and directing the personal appearance of its General Manager, without application of its mind and due compliance of law including the recording of preliminary evidence---Impugned order revealed that Labour Court had treated the lis before it as a petition of civil nature and had proceeded thereupon mechanically without application of judicious mind---Petition before Labour Court was a criminal complaint and should have been dealt with as such and the procedure as provided by law was required to be adopted---Impugned order was set aside---Complaint of respondent would be deemed to be pending before Labour Court who would proceed de novo thereon strictly in accordance with law after due fulfilment of procedural requirements---Case was amended accordingly.
Syed Abdul Razzaq Jillani and Riaz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.
Zafar Ullah Khan Khakwani, Asstt. A.-G. for Respondent No.1.
Rashid Rehman for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 24th September, 2007.
JUDGMENT
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 20-7-2007 passed by respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this constitutional petition are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before respondent No.1 alleging that an offence of unfair labour practice had been committed by the present petitioner who had allegedly violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (LR.O., 2002). The matter came up for hearing on 20-7-2007 when, inter alia, notice was issued to the present petitioner and the General Manager thereof was directed to appear in person by way of the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned respondent No.1 had acted illegally and in violation of the law by forthwith directing the issuance of notice to the present petitioner and directing the personal appearance of its General Manager without application of mind or due compliance including the recording of preliminary evidence.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
6. It is stated in the impugned order that it is a fresh petition; be registered; admit; whereafter notice was issued to the present petitioner whose General Manager was also directed to appear in person. It is clear and obvious from the said order that respondent No.1 treated the lis before it as a petition of civil nature and has proceeded thereupon mechanically. There is, no application of judicious mind. In the instant case, the petition filed before respondent No.1 was a criminal complaint and should have been dealt as such and the procedure as provided by law was required to be adopted. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The complaint of respondent No.2 shall deem to be pending before respondent No.1 who shall proceed de novo thereupon strictly' in accordance with law after due fulfilment of procedural requirements. This petition is accepted; case remanded-in the above terms.
H.B.T./N-108/L Order accordingly.