Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑646 of 1980, heard on 14th October, 1980.

‑‑‑ Ss. 36 & 38(3a)--Procedure‑..Application for extension in time allowed by Labour Court without opportunity of hearing to oppo site‑party‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal in sue motu exercise of powers of revision--Case transferred to other Labour Court to decide application for extension of time for submission of reply statement after opportunity of hearing to both parties and application of fresh mind on such question.

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Applicant.

Abrar Hassan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 14th October, 1980,

The Record and Proceedings in the case of Muhammad Yamin Khan v. Messrs R. C. D. Ball Bearing Ltd., Karachi, was called for, in the exercise of sue mote powers of revision of this Tribunal under subsec tion (3‑a) of section 38, I. R. O., for the purposes of considering the correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Vth Labour Court on 15th September, 1980. The said order was made on the application of the learned Advocate for the respondents, submitting that the reply statement could not be prepared and filed on 14th September, 1980 due to the fact that the General Manager and the Chairman of the respondent‑Company had to go outside Karachi, and that the reply state ment would be filed on the following day. The order in question reads as follows :‑

"I have heard the learned Advocate for the respondent who has made this application yesterday. Since no work could be done in Court after reference of Mr. Late Justice Inamullah, the party is given a chance to file the reply statement today with cost of Rs. 50 as ordered already. The other side is being represented by Mr. Ashraf Rizvi, who is also present but his presence or arguments in connection with this application would be imma terial as the Advocate who had made this application yesterday was to be heard and has been accordingly heard. The application is accordingly disposed of.

(Sd.)

Presiding Officer,

Sind Labour Court

No. V, Karachi.

l 5‑9‑1980."

2. The above order was preceded by another order of the learned Labour Court, dated 14th September, 1980 on the respondents' applica tion to the effect that the Advocate of the respondents may be heard. The said order apparently was passed because repeated opportunities had been given to the respondents to file their reply statement, and by an order, dated 7th September, 1980 the respondents were given a final opportunity to submit their reply statement. Since the reply statement was not prepared or filed on 14th September, 1980 and the reason for the non‑preparation thereof was not the fact that no Court work was to be done on that date, the date of the reference in connection with the sad demise of Late Justice Inamullah Khan, but on account of the voluntary absence of the concerned officers of respondents from Karachi, the learned representative for the other side, Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizivi, should have been given an opportunity to be heard, specially as he had of along been vehemently opposing the grant of repeated opportunities to the respondents to file their reply statement. It may also be pointed out that on account of the reference, only the Court work was not required to be done on 14th September, 1980 but since the reply statement was to be filed in the office, and the office was admittedly not closed, it cannot be said that the reply statement could not be filed on account of the reference. In any case, the other side had a right to be heard against the extension of time for the filing of the reply statement. Since this was denied to them, the order, dated 15th September, 1980, suffers froth an illegality.

3. For the above reasons, I would set aside the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 1Sth September, 1980, and direct that fresh orders be passed on the application of the learned counsel for the respondents, dated 14th September, 1980 after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing. I further direct that the case be transferred from the learned Vth Labour Court to the learned Vth Labour Court for disposal. This transfer is being ordered so that fresh mind may be bought upon the question whether the application for extension of time in submitting the reply statement should be allowed, and if so upon what conditions.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.