Pakistan Case Law← Search
1992 PLC 705

Mst. FOZIA and 6 others vs Messrs CANADIAN APPARAL COMPANY LTD.,

Citation1992 PLC 705
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Revision Applications Nos, KAR-246 to 252 of 1990
Date1991-01-14
Judge(s)Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi
ResultApplications dismissed

DECISION These 7 revision applications are filed against the orders of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, III at Karachi, dated 6-10-1990, whereby the applications of the applicants under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969, were dismissed on the ground that they were not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent-Company had gone into liquidation and the High Court of Sindh has appointed Official Liquidator on 5-9-1988 in J. Miscellaneous No, 51 of 1988, and, therefore, no proceedings were maintainable without the leave of the High Court as provided under section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Section 316 reads as under:-- "Section 316. Suits stayed on winding up order.--(1) When a winding up order has been made or a provisional manager has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court, and subject to such terms as the Court may impose.

(2) The Court which is winding up the company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of, any suit or proceeding by or against the company.

(3) Any suit or proceeding by or against the company which is pending in any Court other than that in which the winding up of the company is proceeding may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be transferred to and disposed of by the Court."

2. The words 'other legal proceedings' used in subsection (1) of section 316 would also include the proceedings under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as had rightly been held by the learned Presiding Officer of the Sindh Labour Court. It is not asserted in the memo. Of Revision applications that no such proceedings have been filed or no Liquidator has been appointed. As such, these 7 revision applications have got no force and they are dismissed.

3. However, the applicants would be at liberty to file fresh proceedings, after obtaining permission from the competent authority under section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, unprejudiced by any orders passed by the Labour Court or by this Tribunal.

4. All these 7 Revision applications are dismissed by this single Decision.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search