| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3051 = 1981 SLD 3051 = 1981 PLC 378 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No: HYD-569 of 1980, decided on 5th November, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
Ghulam Muhammad Moghul for Appellant. Asisur Rehman Memon for
Respondent No. 1. Abdul Ghani Khan for
Respondent No. 2.
Appeal No: HYD-569 of 1980, decided on 5th November, 1980.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal
Ghulam Muhammad Moghul for Appellant. Asisur Rehman Memon for
Respondent No. 1. Abdul Ghani Khan for
Respondent No. 2.
JAMAL
VERSUS
Mst. TAJ BAKHT AND ANOTHER
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 38 (3-a), 54, 55
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 247
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 38 (3-a) & 54 & 55 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 247-Revisional powers of Labour Appellate Tribunal- Cannot be invoked by any party-Only suo motu power-Complaint under Ss. 54 & 55 before Labour Court-Summons procedure of trial-Accused acquitted because of non-appearance of complainant Restoration application dismissed--Interference refused by Labour Appellate Tribunal not only for-reasons of maintainability of revision application but, further held, acquittal even on account of absence of complainant not to be lightly interfered with. Jannat Textile Mills v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1979 Kar. 725 rel. Law Notes 1973 Lah. 245 distinguished. Date of hearing : 5th November, 1980. ORDER On 2-3-1977, complainant Jamal filed a complaint under sections 54 and 55, I. R. O., against the 2 respondents, Mst. Taj Bakht and Choudhry Najib Rasool, for failing to comply with or fulfilling certain conditions of a compromise entered into by them with him. It appears that process was issued against both the respondents but the same could not be served on respondent Mst. Taj Bakht who remained absent throughout. On 25-10-1979, when the above case was fixed for hearing before the learned VIth Labour Court, respondent No. 2, Choudhry Najib Rasool, appeared but the complainant failed to appear till 11-00 a. m. Accordingly, both the respondents were acquitted under section 247, Cr. P. C. The complainant filed an application for restoration of his complaint but the same was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the grounds, firstly, that it was not maintainable, and secondly, that it had no power to set aside its orders of acquittal. The complainant has sought to challenge the said orders by invoking the suo motu revisional powers of this…