Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3116 = 1980 SLD 3116 = 1980 PLD 80
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-48 of 1978, decided on 8th March, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the former High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated 3-3-1975 in Petition No. 1258 of 1
Presented By: Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem, JJ
Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Fazle Ghani Khan, Advocate and Youst f Raft Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.

Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Appellant

VERSUS

MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD. AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 25

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25-A (1)-Words and phrases-Word "himself" in S. 25-A (1)Does not involve concept of agency-Grievance notice served by Advocate on behalf of his client-Held, nut in conformity with requirement of law.-[Words and phrases]. The word "himself" is prefixed by the word "either" and coupled with the words "or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union". The word "either" means "one or the other" and the word "through" denotes the concept of agency. Therefore, in construing the word "himself" the words "either" and "through" cannot be overlooked. The former refers to the alternatives while the latter means a medium of agency. The word "himself" means "the emphatic form of he, him: in his real character". Clearly, therefore, in using the word "either" the Legislature provided alternatives to the workman or his agent such as the Shop Steward or the Trade Union; and if the concept of agency is to be regarded as inherent in the word "himself" then plainly it would be against its real meaning and this could not be the intention of the-Legislature which has purposely used this word to avoid legal quibbles. The legislative intent seems to be to avoid interference by any other outside agency. It would appear from the scheme of the legislation that the appearance through legal practitioners is restricted and wherever he is eligible to appear it has been so enacted. Section 49 of the Ordinance makes this intent obvious and in this view of the matter it would be anomalous to introduce the concept of agency in the word "himself" for in that eventuality the object of the law can easily be defeated. It would also be inapt to introduce the consideration of illiteracy or the existence or non-existence of the alternatives while construing the word "himself" as it is the principle of interpretation to give to the word its ordinary meaning for that is the only way to find out the intent of the Legislature. Daud Hosiery Mills v. Hazrat Muhammad Yousuf Writ Petition No. 264 of 1975…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register