Find a Lawyer

IQBAL AHMED versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. VII, SUKKUR

Section 228 contempt of court Act (LXIV of 1976), section 3/4 Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII of 1969), section 38 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Sections 476, 195 and 561 of the Labor Court No Section 767676 was included, CRPC had no jurisdiction to prosecute the accused applicant who was neither a party to the aforesaid court nor to justify the proceedings. Could have justified his action before a presiding officer of a civil, revenue or criminal court. As an District and Sessions Judge, the unclean order posed incorrectly and positioned itself, in addition to being a Presiding Officer of the Labor Court, the Sid Presiding Officer also charged the accused with contempt of court Act 5 228, PPC and Section 3 And found guilty immediately under 4. , 1976, who was taken into custody and jailed and subsequently given a show cause notice for proceedings under section 4776, the PC Presiding Officer of the Labor Court even made Section 195 (1), No complaint was filed in writing under the CRPC and they also contradicted section 38 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by contempt of court proceedings and without referring the matter to the Labor Appellate Tribunal. Is violated. The entire exercise that the presiding officer of the Labor Court did was totally illegal and the trial proceedings against the accused without legal authority were terminated. when you need a advocate from Shahpur Chakar lawyer