ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Const. Petition No.S-2288 of 2017
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For orders on
office objection at Flag ‘A’
2. For hearing of
main case
11-05-2018
Mr.
Shahzado Dreho, Advocate
for petitioner
Mr.
Moizuddin Qurshi, Advocate
for respondent No.1
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Both learned
counsel for the parties have made submissions. The gist
of submissions of petitioner’s counsel is that respondent being admittedly a
corporate entity should adhere to Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC and Board Resolution should have been there. When
confronted with the availability of remedy under the Sindh
Industrial Relation Act 2013, he has submitted reported judgments which are
also mentioned in the opening page of his petition that there is no absolute
bar to file a Constitutional Petition of the nature, even if the alternate
remedy is not exhausted.
On the other
hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that the concerned Manager who
is representing the respondent-Gul Bottlers, already
has an authority in his favour as is also mentioned
in the counter affidavit filed in the complaint No.2/2017 (available at page
105 of this file), which is still sub judice in the
Court of learned Sindh Labour
Court No.VII at Sukkur. The
respondent’s counsel on the last date of hearing also submitted Statement dated
07.05.2018 in which Board Resolution dated 10.04.2018 was appended but on
perusal it appears that the said Resolution is an authority in favour of Respondent’s Officer to proceed with the present
petition and not for the above mentioned case/complaint subjudice
before the Labour Court.
Without
touching upon the merits of the case, in my considered view it is a serious
question of law which should have been decided by the Court below after
considering the material available on record and after giving reasons on the
objection raised by the petitioner. In this regard the reported case of Pak
Turk Enterprises (PVT.) Ltd v. Turk Have Yollari
(Turkish Airlines Inc.)-2015 CLC 1 [Sindh] is of relevance here. In
the order impugned, it appears, a discussion showing application of a judicial
mind is lacking. In this regard the Articles of Association of the respondent
company should have been examined also to reach the conclusion that
whether the person has been authorized
in the Articles of Association or not.
In view of the
above discussion the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to
the learned
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA