Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Applications Nos. 36 and 38 of 1970, decided on 19th May of 1971.
S. 36(2) and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 18 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 141 and O. IX, r. 13‑Proceedings before Labour Court ‑ Procedure ‑ Provisions of Civil Procedure Code applicable as far as possible except where specific procedure pro vided in special statute ‑ Proceedings on application under S. O. 18, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 required to be disposed of in summary manner as laid down in S. O. 18(c)‑Respondent's repre sentative though in attendance not allowed to appear and case decided ex parte ‑Ex parte orders, in circumstances, set aside.
Wasi Ahmed for Applicants.
Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Respondents.
‑These two miscellaneous applications arise out of Application No. 47/70‑Mohammad Ali v. Razzak Industries and Application No. 48/70‑Habib v. Razzak Industries which had been filed by the applicants under Standing Order 18 (b) of the West Pakistan Industrial & Com mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Those two applications were adjourned sine die through the order of this Court dated 25‑6‑1970. On 1‑9‑1970 notice was issued to the parties for hearing on 14‑10‑1970.
On 14‑10‑1970 Mohammad Yaqoob appeared on behalf of the respondent and this Court found that he was not autho rised to represent the respondents and hence proceeded to decide the matter ex parte. The ex parte order was announced the same date.
Through these two Miscellaneous applications Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani for the respondents wants me to set aside the ex parte orders dated 14‑10‑1970. His contentions are as follows:‑
(a) Mohammad Yaqoob is admittedly the Manager of the respondents and, therefore, an employer and hence his appear ance was sufficient in the eyes of law. He refers to section 2 subsection (c) clause (i) of the Standing Orders, Ordinance, 1968.
(b) In the absence of any procedure laid down for the trial of such cases the Court will follow the Civil Procedure Code as far as possible In view of section 141 of C. P. C. To support this contention he has referred to the case reported in 1968 P L C 86.
(c) In this case the respondent had appeared and it was the Court who did not allow him to take part in the proceedings and, therefore, this Court may exercise its Inherent powers to set aside the impugned orders.
Mr. Wasi Ahmed represents applicants Mohammad Ali and Habib. His contentions are as follows:‑
(a) This Court is not a Court of civil Jurisdiction and in terms of Standing Order 18 (d) of the Standing Orders, Ordi nance, 1968, its order is final and cannot tie re‑opened in appeal, review or revision.
(b) In any case the respondents have not shown sufficient cause to explain their inability to take part in the proceedings.
It is a well settled principle that the special tribunal follow the procedure laid down in the C. P. C. as far as possible if the statute creating them does not lay down any procedure. This Court will, therefore, fallow the provisions of C. P. C. as far as possible and the only restriction imposed is that it shall proceed in a summary manner as laid down in Standing Order 18 (c) of the Standing Orders, Ordinance, 1968.
Standing Order 18 (c) of the Ordinance referred to by Mr. Wasi Ahmed reads as follows:‑
"On receipt of any complaint under clause (b), the Court, after giving notice to the employer concerned and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, may decide the matter in such summary way as it deems fit."
The position is clear. If the parties are given an opportunity of being heard then the orders of this Court are final but in the cases before me the respondent was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is evident from the proceedings of the cases that Mohammad Yaqoob was in attendance and the Court refused to allow him to appear for the respondents. This is, therefore, a fit case where the impugned ex parte orders may be set aside and I set them aside. I will allow Rs. 50 as cost to the applicants as cost of restoration of the application each case.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer