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.
Petition No. LHR‑229 of 1984, decided on 17th October, 1984.
‑‑S. 38 (5)‑Contempt of Court‑Alleged wrong interpretation of judgment of Court ‑ Does not amount to contempt ‑ Persons declared in judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal as workers governed by Labour Laws‑Such persons subsequently saying that they were civil servants‑Held: Though would be estopped from saying so but no question of commission of contempt of Court arose.
Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 15th October, 1984.
This is an application made under section 38 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is complained that the respondents called the order of this Court, dated 14th October, 1981 as black law (Kala Qanoon) and thus committed contempt of this Court. I have carefully gone through the notice in which it was said that the petitioner wanted to apply black law. The respondents have not said that this Court's judgment, dated 14th October, 1981 was a black law. They say that the petitioner wrongly interprets the judgment referred to above. The allegation that some one is wrongly interpreting a judgment of a Court does not amount to contempt of that Court. In the said judgment this Tribunal held that the respondents in that case were workers and Labour Laws were applicable to them and the dismissed persons were directed to be reinstated in service. If now the respondents say that they are civil servants, they would be estopped from saying so, but no question of the commission of contempt of Court arises.
2. As a result, the petition is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer