| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2652 2014 SLD 2652 2014 PLC 278 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan
Labour Appeal No.40 of 2013, decided on 20th March, 2014. Date of hearing: 17th March, 2014.
ABDUL GHIAS NOUSHERWANI, MEMBER
Arbab Tahir for Appellant. Syed Asif Shah for
Respondents.
Labour Appeal No.40 of 2013, decided on 20th March, 2014. Date of hearing: 17th March, 2014.
ABDUL GHIAS NOUSHERWANI, MEMBER
Arbab Tahir for Appellant. Syed Asif Shah for
Respondents.
MOULA DAD
VS
GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING), NABI QASIM INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (XIV of 2010)--- ----Ss. 41 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.28---Application under O.VII R.10, C.P.C.---Direction was issued to present the appeal to Civil Court at K---Question of determination of employee as worker/workman was not raised in appeal---Specific term had been incorporated in the contract executed between the parties to the effect that "in case of a dispute any legal proceedings shall be initiated at K"---Plea taken by the employee was that terms and conditions of contract of his initial appointment were not applicable after his promotion and that under S.28 of Contract Act, 1872 such condition was void---Extent and scope of S.28 of the Contract Act, 1872 regarding the ouster of jurisdiction of courts by the consent of the parties and the question of interpretation of a clause in the agreement which related to the ouster of jurisdiction of the courts by consent---Said provision provided two exceptions, which relate to an agreement with regard to arbitration---Word "absolutely" in S.28, Contract Act, 1872 was very clear which in ordinary sense meant unconditionally/unquestionably i.e. completely restraining a person to avail legal proceedings---In suit based on breach of contract a part of the cause of action arise at the place where the contract were to be carried out, in other words were according to the facts stated in the agreement the cause of action was to be deemed to have arisen could not be held to be illegal---Contract entered into between two parties the cause of action partly arose at one place and partly in the contract that in case of any dispute arising out of the contract same shall be litigated only wherein the jurisdiction of one particular court and in the present case, the courts in both places had jurisdiction such an agreement was valid one and enforceable under the law and the parties were bound by it---If cause of action had arises at the principal office as well as at the subordinate office and parties entered into an agreement and by consent conferred jurisdiction on the particular court in order to avoid the unnecessary…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492