Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1992 CLC 1441

INDUS STEEL PIPES LTD. vs INDUS STEEL PIPES LTD.

Citation1992 CLC 1441
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No, S-4 of 1990
Date1992-02-12
Judge(s)Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri
ResultCase remanded

1. ' This Constitutional petition is directed against the order passed by Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18-3-1989, allowing the application of respondents Nos. 3 to 78 under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner had affixed court-fees of Rs,2 instead of Rs,5 on the memo. Of appeal. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has passed the aforesaid. Order relying on 1989 CLC 2080 (Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Gul Hayat and another) and PLD 1983 Karachi 537 (Muhammad Sulaiman v. Ihsan Ali).

2. ' The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that no objection was raised by the office at the time of presentation of the appeal with regard to the deficiency in payment of court-fees. It is further submitted that the appeal was admitted to regular hearing. No such objection was raised even at the time of hearing of the appeal but, however, the learned Labour Court took up the issue only at the time of dictating the judgment and dismissed the appeal.

3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to PLD 1984 SC 289 (Siddiq Khan and 2 others v.

4. Abdul Shakoor Khan), wherein the question of deficiency of the court-fees was considered with regard to its effect on the limitation. It was observed that the Court on discovery of an omission or error in valuation or deficiency in payment of court-fees, shall, acting under Order VII, Rule 11 (b) and (c), allow time to the plaintiff to make correction and supply the deficiency. If he does so, then the plaint shall be deemed to have been validly filed on the date of the original presentation notwithstanding the fact that the court-fees was supplied after the expiry of the period of limitation.

5. 1, therefore, allow this petition. The case is remanded to the Appellate' Court for decision on merits.

6. Since the respondents have not come forward to contest the petition, there shall be no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch