Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.519 of 1986, decided on 18th November, 1996
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), 5.0. 16‑‑West Pakistan Industrial Development (Transfer of Projects and Companies) Act (XXVIII of 1974), S. 6(3) ‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑ Eviction from premises‑ Summary procedure‑‑Petitioners transferred to other companies of Employer Corporation‑‑Complaint lodged by employer‑corporation for summary eviction of petitioners from residential accommodation‑‑Services of petitioners not terminated‑‑Complaint dismissed by Magistrate but case was remanded to Magistrate by Additional Sessions Judge in revision‑‑No adverse order passed so far‑‑Petitioners, held, would have sufficient time to rebut allegations and take all legal pleas before Magistrate‑‑Proceedings refused to be quashed in circumstances.
1974 p L C 275 ref.
Akhtar Hussain for Appellants.
Muhammad Ibrahim Abbasi and Muhammad Ibrahim Memon A.‑A.G. for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 17th and 18th November, 1986.
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge Karachi whereby he set aside the order dated 30‑4‑1984 passed by Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Civil Lines, Karachi.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, filed a complaint against the applicant and three others under section 16 of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance No. VI of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for their summary eviction from their respective accommodation/ premises on the grounds that the applicants and others were transferred to various Corporations/ Companies by virtue of the West Pakistan Industrial Development (Transfer of Projects and Companies) Act XXVIII of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The learned S.D.M., Civil Lines dismissed the complaint on the ground that the same did not lie under section 16 of the Ordinance, The respondent No. 2 preferred revision application which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge hence the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as the applicants were transferred under a law therefore the provisions of the Ordinance would not be applicable and they could not be evicted through the summary procedure of law. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions on the subject. Under section 6(3) of the Act the Federal Government may, by order in writing direct that the services of any officer, workman or other employee of the principal Corporation employed in its Head Office or any of its Branch Offices or in connection with its functions as Managing Agents of companies shall, on such day as may be specified in the order, stand transferred to the corporation, managed company vesting in a corporation or managed establishment so specified. Under clause 4 whose services are transferred were entitled to terms and conditions which are not less favourable to them. Under clause (5) the employees who have been transferred to such establishment shall not claim any compensation etc. Corporation has been defined in section 2(a) of the Act as a Company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1913. Principal Corporation has been defined as West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation. Under section 16 of the Ordinance a workman occupying residential accommodation provided by his employer, who has resigned or retired, or has been retrenched, discharged or dismissed, or whose services have been terminated, shall vacate such accommodation within period of two months from the date of his retrenchment etc. and under sub‑clause (2) if a workman fails to vacate any residential premises provided by the employer the employer may lodge a complaint with a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction in the area where such residential accommodation is located and the Magistrate on hearing the parties, may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, summarily decide the case and may pass an order of eviction.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the summary procedure laid down in section 16 of the Ordinance is not applicable in the instant case as the services of the applicants have not been terminated. This contention has no force. Only the case has been remanded to the learned Magistrate for disposal of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2. The applicants would have sufficient time to rebut the allegation and take all legal pleas before the learned Magistrate. No adverse order has so far been passed against the applicants.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Standard Printing Press v. Standard Printing Press Workers Union 1974 P L C 275. The facts of the cited case are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The application stands dismissed.
S. A. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer