Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3285 = 1975 SLD 3285 = 1975 PLD 922
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 1038 of 1973, decided on 26th May 1975.
Presented By: Mushtak Ali Kazi, J
Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum P L D 1972 Lah. 603 and N. Q. Industries v. Mrs. Bapai Kaikhusro P L D 1968 Kar. 589 rel. Brooke Bond's case P L D 1973 Kar. 189 held not applicable. Sher Afgan for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

GHARO TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI-Petitioner

VERSUS

VTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 36

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XLI, r. 19, 151

Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)

Section: 21

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)  S. 36 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 19 & S. 151 and General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21-Restoration Denial of right to apply for restoration of case dismissed in default, or for setting aside ex parte order, on ground of suit having ended rendering Court functus officio-Not correct-Implied and inherent power always exists in every Tribunal to set aside orders passed in default of appearance of parties - Procedure if not indicated in Ordinance, Tribunal may choose any procedure it likes-Labour Court empowered to exercise powers under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for adjudicating and determining any industrial dispute-Power to restore a matter dismissed for default-Covered by such requirement of law Labour Courts, hence,, held, can exercise powers under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for restoring matter dismissed for default. Once an ex parts order is passed the Rent Controller can set aside such an order and take up the case for rehearing. To deny the right to a person to apply for restoration of a case dismissed in default or for setting aside an ex parte order on the ground that the suit has ended and, therefore, the Court had become functus officio for all purposes is not a correct view. There always exists an implied and an inherent power in every tribunal to set aside orders passed in default of appearance of the parties. A perusal of the Ordinance will show that there is no provision in it anywhere for dismissing a matter in default or to proceed ex parte. If, therefore, any such recourse is adopted by Rent Controller it is obvious that he adopts it by virtue of the inherent power vested in him to choose any procedure he likes, If once he has chosen such a procedure, then to carry the matter to its logical sense, he must retain the power to recall or set aside orders passed ex parte or in default. The Labour Court can exercise the powers under the Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of adjudicating and determining any indus trial dispute. The power to restore a matter dismissed for default would be covered by this recruitment of the law. Unless a matter can be restored it…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register