| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLD 3070 = 1973 PLD 189 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 138 of 1972, decided on 10th October 1972.
Presented By: Tufail Ali A. Rahman, C. J. and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J
E. A. Nomani for Appellant. Ali Amjad for
Respondent No. 2.
Constitutional Petition No. 138 of 1972, decided on 10th October 1972.
Presented By: Tufail Ali A. Rahman, C. J. and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J
E. A. Nomani for Appellant. Ali Amjad for
Respondent No. 2.
BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD.-Petitioner
VERSUS
SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 201
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 36, 34, (2)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 201-No appeal or other remedy provided by law against impugned order-Petition under Art. 201 competent. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 36 & 34-Subsection (2) of S. 36 does not confer on Labour Court (adjudicating industrial dispute) all powers of a civil Court Labour Court, pending application made to it under S. 34, has no authority to pass order in nature of interim injunction under O. XXXIX, r. 1, C. P. C. restraining employer from terminating services of employee/applicant-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1. Subsection (2) of section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not confer upon a Labour Court, while adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute, all the powers of a civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code but only such of them as may be described as procedural, i.e., such as are required "for the-- purpose" of adjudication and determina tion. It is clearly not necessary in order to be able to adjudi cate or-determination a dispute, that pending the adjudication or determination, a party be restrained from giving effect to order passed by it whereby tire services of its employee had been terminated. Abdul Jamil v. Registrar, Trade Unions P L D 1969 Lah. 220 ref. (c) Interpretation of statutes Main object and intention of statute clear-Provisions not rendered null and void because of draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance of law-Court competent to put construction which may modify meaning of word or even structure of sentence. Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., Chap. II, p. 428 ref. Date of bearing : 25th August 1972. JUDGMENT TUFAB. AU A. RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition challenges the validity of an order passed by the Second Sind Labour Court at Karachi dated the 10th of…