Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 855 1976 SLD 855 1976 PLC 645
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 833 of 1974, decided on 18th May 1976.
ZAKAULLAH LODHI, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD.

VS

5TH SIND LABOUR COURT AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 36-B-Setting aside ex parte order-Junior Labour Court, held, competent to recall its earlier ex parte order to enable itself to decide case on merits-Principles of natural justice also demand that case should be finally decided after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties-Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 13. The Junior Labour Court has been specifically vested with the powers under section 36-B of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to decide the case after hearing both the parties. As such the powers enjoyed by the Junior Labour Court to pass an order also include the powers to modify, alter, recall, rescind or correct its order. Although the provisions of Order IX, C. P. C. are not available to it, but these powers are vested in it by virtue of sec­tion 36-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance under which he has final authority to decide a case falling within his jurisdiction. The Junior Labour Court was therefore competent in recalling its earlier ex parte order to enable itself to decide the case on merits. Even otherwise the principles of natural justice demand that as far as possible the case should be finally decided after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Keeping in view these principles also the recalling of the ex parte orders is not unjustified provided such an action would promote the ends of justice. Saghir Hussain Jaffery for Petitioner. Abdul Karim Lakhan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th May 1976. JUDGMENT The 3rd respondent was employed with the petitioner as Manager. Ha worked in the petitioner's Organisation up to 15-2-72. While in service he is alleged to have misbehaved with a customer on 31-1-72, accordingly on the allegation of misconduct repeated charge-sheets issued to him on 4-2-1972, 14-2-1972 and 18-2-1972. It is stated by the petitioner that repetition of charge-sheets was necessitated because the 3rd respondent was constantly avoiding to accept the charge-sheet. Subsequently the 3rd respondent absented himself from duty from 15th February 1972 to 18th September 972…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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