| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3109 = 1975 SLD 3109 = 1975 PLD 288 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 927 and 494 of 1973, heard on 5th April 1974
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, JJ
Refusal of Courts to go into the merits of the case is a jurisdictional .defect. Obaidur Rahman for Petitioner (in both the Appeals). Nizam Ahmad (in C. P. No. 494/73) and Suleman Kassim (in C. P. No. 927/73) for
Respondent No. 2.
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 927 and 494 of 1973, heard on 5th April 1974
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, JJ
Refusal of Courts to go into the merits of the case is a jurisdictional .defect. Obaidur Rahman for Petitioner (in both the Appeals). Nizam Ahmad (in C. P. No. 494/73) and Suleman Kassim (in C. P. No. 927/73) for
Respondent No. 2.
IMDAD ALI-Petitioner
VERSUS
SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER -Respondents
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 25-A(5)
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 25-A(5)-Jurisdiction-Words "shall go into all the facts of the case" occurring in subsection (5)-Not without purpose-Legislature intended to provide another forum for determining grievance a fresh Words define jurisdiction of Junior Labour Court as a tribunal of fact-Refusal of Junior Labour Court to go into merits of case-A jurisdictional defect-Cases remanded for decision on merits. In subsection (5) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the words "In adjudicating and determining a grievance" and those that follow namely, "shall go into all the facts of the case" have been used not without a purpose, for the intention seems to be to provide another forum for determining the grievance afresh after considering the facts on which the dismissal is based. If that was not so, then there was no occasion for using the words "shall go into all the facts of the case", which define the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court as a tribunal of fact in regard to the matters which have been dealt with by the domestic tribunal. Therefore if the Legislature in its wisdom has chosen the words of far-reaching consequence, how their meaning can be whittled down and the provision construed in a limited sense as if the Junior Labour Court was hearing a second appeal within the meaning of section 100, C. P. C., or a revision under section 115, C. P. C. The reason is also not far to seek for it was intended to provide a forum to check against arbitrary and capricious dismissals. Date of hearing: 5th April 1974. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-A common order will suffice for disposing of Petitions 494 and 927/73 as in both of them an identical question of law was…