HUSSAIN KARIM vs MESSRS CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Labour Court. The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court without providing the mandatory notice to the employer as required by law. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court could exercise jurisdiction in the absence of this notice. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's failure to comply with the notice requirement was a clear contravention of the applicable statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition, as the Labour Court's order was consistent with established law and authority. The Supreme Court affirmed that strict adherence to procedural prerequisites, such as the service of notice to an employer, is essential before invoking the jurisdiction of a Labour Court. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Is the service of notice to an employer a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Standing Order No. 18?
- Can a writ petition succeed if the petitioner failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements before approaching the Labour Court?
- Standing Order No. 18, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-On hearing the learned counsel for the ,petitioner, we find no proper ground to grant leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner admittedly did not give notice to the employer before invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. This was in contravention of the provisions of Standing Order No. 18. The High Court has relied on Saleemsons Ltd. v. 2nd Sind Labour Court (PLD 1973 Kar. 1) and dismissed the writ petition with the observation that "the order passed by the Labour Court in the present case is covered by law and authority." It is not shown that the vie taken by the Labour Court is not covered by law and authority. In the circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of the Court as without lawful authority was rightly dismissed.
3. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition dismissed.