Plat
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Plat as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,126
- Pages: 6
Before the Hon’ble Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Revision Petition No. _________/2002
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Ghulam Farid Zaffar Iqbal Muhammad Iqbal Basharat Ali Mushtaq Ahmad Muhammad Rafique Hanif Masih Muhammad Riaz Bashir Ahmad Sardar Ahmad Nazir Ahmad Naseer Ahmad Ghulam Shabbir Asif Ali Muhammad Nawaz Abdul Khaliq Khadim Hussain Muhammad Ameen Shah Muhammad Ghulam Haider Mst. Aisha widow of Ghulam Murtaza Muhammad Ramzan
Ex-employees Shezan (Pvt.) Ltd. Multan.
C/o Malik Abdul Kareem Kamboh, Advocate High Court, 98District Courts, Multan. ……Revision Petitioners
VERSUS 1. 2.
The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan. Shezan Private Ltd. Multan through its Manager, Abdul Hameed Khokhar, Kutchery Road, Multan. ……RESPONDENTS Revision Petition U/s 38 (3) of I.R.O. 1969.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the respondent No. 2 management moved an application on 7.4.2001 before respondent No. 1 for closing down its establishment hotel and Multan namely Shezan Private Ltd. under provision of Sec-11 of I.R.O. 1969 without mentioning any reason for closing down the establishment. Attested copy of application under the provision of I.R.O. is attached as Annex “A”.
2.
That the petitioners were workmen employed in the establishment of Shezan Hotel Pvt. Ltd. whose services were terminated prior to seeking permission for closing down the establishment and full dues were not also paid to the petitioners.
3.
That since the management of Shezan Pvt. Ltd. made the public at large as a party and a notice to this effect was published in the newspaper, (attested copy of newspaper cutting is attached as Annex “B”) therefore, the petitioners moved the application before respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 2 has still to pay the amount/arrears of the petitioners, therefore, permission cannot be granted to them. (Attested copy of written reply is attached as Annex “C”
4.
That the respondent No. 2 also moved an application for striking off the names of the petitioners from the petition, but the same was not allowed by the learned respondent No. 1. Attested copy of application and orders are Annexes “D & E”.
5.
That the respondent No. 2 moved an application before respondent No. 1 to amend its petition U/s-11 of I.R.O. and the Hon’ble respondent No. 1 granted the permission to amend the petition. Attested copy of application and order are Annexes “E & F”. The attested copy of entire proceedings of the Hon’ble
Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, are also attached. 6.
That on 29.6.2002, the respondent No. 1 dismissed the petition U/s-11 of I.R.O. on the statement of counsel of the respondent No. 2 making the main application as having been become infructuous. Therefore, this petition is being moved in order to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 29.6.2002 on the following: GROUNDS i)
That the learned Presiding Officer did not apply his mind as the petition U/s-11-A Standing Order Ordinance, was to be adjudicated and give decision to the effect as to whether closure of establishment is according to requirement of law as enumerated in the provision of Standing Order Ordinance of 1968.
ii)
That simply disposing of the application on the statement of the respondent No. 2’s counsel is against facts and law. The counsel of the petitioners was not present. Petitioners themselves were present in the court but they were not asked about the fact of receiving of dues. Therefore, this order is totally nullity in the eyes of law.
iii)
That the learned Presiding Officer has decided this matter in a slipshod manner without adjudicating upon the matter and the reason given by the respondent No. 2. It was obligatory upon the court to do so, instead of disposing of the application of the respondent No. 2 mere on the statement of counsel, which has got no relevance with the facts of the main case.
iv)
That the impugned order is against law and facts of the case.
v)
That the learned Presiding Officer failed to appreciate the law that first permission is sought and thereafter the services of the workmen employed in the establishment are terminated either by giving one month notice or one month salary in lieu thereof.
vi)
That it is still in the field that respondent No. 2 has not yet been granted permission by any competent court of law for fulfilling the requirement of standing order ordinance, labour legislation and settled law on the core issue of closure of establishment under standing order ordinance 1968.
vii)
That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were made short payment for which the petitioners filed their written reply before the respondent No. 1. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the record and proceeding of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan and examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may please be granted to the petitioners. Humble Petitioners,
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan this___ day of July 2002 that all the contents of the above petition are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Petitioners
Before the Hon’ble Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Revision Petition No. _________/2002
Ghulam Farid etc.
Vs.
Presiding Officer etc.
Revision Petition U/s 38 (3) of I.R.O. 1969. AFFIDAVIT of: Ghulam Farid S/o Allah Bakhsh, caste Khokhar, R/o Old Ice Factory, near Madrasa Qasimul Aloom, Kutchery Road, Multan. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
Before the Hon’ble Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Revision Petition No. _________/2002 Ghulam Farid etc.
Vs.
Presiding Officer etc.
Revision Petition U/s 38 (3) of I.R.O. 1969. INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Revision Petition.
2
Affidavit.
3
A
4
Copy of application U/s 11-A of I.R.O. dated 7.4.2001. Copy of press cutting.
5
Attested copy of written reply.
C
6
9
Attested copy of application for striking off defence & orders. Attested copy of application for amendment & order. Copy of proceeding of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer. Power of attorney.
10
Copy of revision petition.
7 8
B
D&E E/1 & F G
PETITIONERS, Dated: __________
Revision Petition No. _________/2002
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Ghulam Farid Zaffar Iqbal Muhammad Iqbal Basharat Ali Mushtaq Ahmad Muhammad Rafique Hanif Masih Muhammad Riaz Bashir Ahmad Sardar Ahmad Nazir Ahmad Naseer Ahmad Ghulam Shabbir Asif Ali Muhammad Nawaz Abdul Khaliq Khadim Hussain Muhammad Ameen Shah Muhammad Ghulam Haider Mst. Aisha widow of Ghulam Murtaza Muhammad Ramzan
Ex-employees Shezan (Pvt.) Ltd. Multan.
C/o Malik Abdul Kareem Kamboh, Advocate High Court, 98District Courts, Multan. ……Revision Petitioners
VERSUS 1. 2.
The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan. Shezan Private Ltd. Multan through its Manager, Abdul Hameed Khokhar, Kutchery Road, Multan. ……RESPONDENTS Revision Petition U/s 38 (3) of I.R.O. 1969.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the respondent No. 2 management moved an application on 7.4.2001 before respondent No. 1 for closing down its establishment hotel and Multan namely Shezan Private Ltd. under provision of Sec-11 of I.R.O. 1969 without mentioning any reason for closing down the establishment. Attested copy of application under the provision of I.R.O. is attached as Annex “A”.
2.
That the petitioners were workmen employed in the establishment of Shezan Hotel Pvt. Ltd. whose services were terminated prior to seeking permission for closing down the establishment and full dues were not also paid to the petitioners.
3.
That since the management of Shezan Pvt. Ltd. made the public at large as a party and a notice to this effect was published in the newspaper, (attested copy of newspaper cutting is attached as Annex “B”) therefore, the petitioners moved the application before respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 2 has still to pay the amount/arrears of the petitioners, therefore, permission cannot be granted to them. (Attested copy of written reply is attached as Annex “C”
4.
That the respondent No. 2 also moved an application for striking off the names of the petitioners from the petition, but the same was not allowed by the learned respondent No. 1. Attested copy of application and orders are Annexes “D & E”.
5.
That the respondent No. 2 moved an application before respondent No. 1 to amend its petition U/s-11 of I.R.O. and the Hon’ble respondent No. 1 granted the permission to amend the petition. Attested copy of application and order are Annexes “E & F”. The attested copy of entire proceedings of the Hon’ble
Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, are also attached. 6.
That on 29.6.2002, the respondent No. 1 dismissed the petition U/s-11 of I.R.O. on the statement of counsel of the respondent No. 2 making the main application as having been become infructuous. Therefore, this petition is being moved in order to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 29.6.2002 on the following: GROUNDS i)
That the learned Presiding Officer did not apply his mind as the petition U/s-11-A Standing Order Ordinance, was to be adjudicated and give decision to the effect as to whether closure of establishment is according to requirement of law as enumerated in the provision of Standing Order Ordinance of 1968.
ii)
That simply disposing of the application on the statement of the respondent No. 2’s counsel is against facts and law. The counsel of the petitioners was not present. Petitioners themselves were present in the court but they were not asked about the fact of receiving of dues. Therefore, this order is totally nullity in the eyes of law.
iii)
That the learned Presiding Officer has decided this matter in a slipshod manner without adjudicating upon the matter and the reason given by the respondent No. 2. It was obligatory upon the court to do so, instead of disposing of the application of the respondent No. 2 mere on the statement of counsel, which has got no relevance with the facts of the main case.
iv)
That the impugned order is against law and facts of the case.
v)
That the learned Presiding Officer failed to appreciate the law that first permission is sought and thereafter the services of the workmen employed in the establishment are terminated either by giving one month notice or one month salary in lieu thereof.
vi)
That it is still in the field that respondent No. 2 has not yet been granted permission by any competent court of law for fulfilling the requirement of standing order ordinance, labour legislation and settled law on the core issue of closure of establishment under standing order ordinance 1968.
vii)
That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners were made short payment for which the petitioners filed their written reply before the respondent No. 1. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the record and proceeding of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan and examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may please be granted to the petitioners. Humble Petitioners,
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan this___ day of July 2002 that all the contents of the above petition are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Petitioners
Before the Hon’ble Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Revision Petition No. _________/2002
Ghulam Farid etc.
Vs.
Presiding Officer etc.
Revision Petition U/s 38 (3) of I.R.O. 1969. AFFIDAVIT of: Ghulam Farid S/o Allah Bakhsh, caste Khokhar, R/o Old Ice Factory, near Madrasa Qasimul Aloom, Kutchery Road, Multan. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
Before the Hon’ble Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Revision Petition No. _________/2002 Ghulam Farid etc.
Vs.
Presiding Officer etc.
Revision Petition U/s 38 (3) of I.R.O. 1969. INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Revision Petition.
2
Affidavit.
3
A
4
Copy of application U/s 11-A of I.R.O. dated 7.4.2001. Copy of press cutting.
5
Attested copy of written reply.
C
6
9
Attested copy of application for striking off defence & orders. Attested copy of application for amendment & order. Copy of proceeding of the Hon’ble Presiding Officer. Power of attorney.
10
Copy of revision petition.
7 8
B
D&E E/1 & F G
PETITIONERS, Dated: __________
