2011 PLP 249 (PLC)
NIB EMPLOYEES' FRONT OF PAKISTAN through President and another Versus Messrs NIB BANK LIMITED through President and 3 others
| Citation | 2011 PLP 249 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Bashir Ahmed Memon, Member |
| Parties | NIB EMPLOYEES' FRONT OF PAKISTAN through President and another Versus Messrs NIB BANK LIMITED through President and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 249 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 249 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Bashir Ahmed Memon, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 249 (PLC) (NIB EMPLOYEES' FRONT OF PAKISTAN through President and another Versus Messrs NIB BANK LIMITED through President and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faisal Mahmood Ghani for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
[(as revived by Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act (XV of 2010)], S.27
Complaint against violation of interim order
Complainant who claimed to be Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment had alleged that Commission had granted interim stay order against employers, but despite service of that interim stay order, they had transferred the officer-bearers of the trade union and had committed contempt of court by violating stay order passed by the Commission
Complainants had failed to point out as to how the employers had violated the status quo order granted by the Commission regarding employment of the complainant
No allegation of removal or termination of the complainant from employment
Complainant had been transferred in routine and that too within the city, which did not amount to contempt of court as transfer was not covered in status quo order granted by the Commission
Complainant had failed to specify as to what contempt of the court had been committed; and he had not given the name of any person who had violated the stay order
Contempt case had arisen out of main case, which petition along with stay application having already been dismissed as not maintainable, on that ground also, complaint was not maintainable. Ch. M. Nishat Warsi for the Complainants.
Judgment & Decree
BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).
The complainants named above have filed the present complaint under section 27 of Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010 claiming that complainant No.1 is collective bargaining agent in establishment of respondent No.1 and being CBA along with others has filed a Petition bearing No.4A(142)/2010-K in which this Bench of Commission has granted interim stay order dated 26-7-2010 against the respondents and in spite of service of that interim stay order the respondents have transferred the office-bearers of the trade union thus they have committed contempt of court by violating the orders dated 26-7-2010 passed by this Bench of Commission.
2. Notice was served upon the respondents and they have filed their comments and legal objections denying the allegation made in the complaint. The respondents have asserted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there is no element of mens rea on the part of respondents. It is asserted that the this Bench of Commission has granted status quo order regarding employment of the complainants and office-bearers of the union and their employment has not been disturbed, which includes, dismissal, termination, retrenchment or discharge etc, as such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the pleadings and material placed on record.
4. The complainant has alleged that respondents have transferred the complainant No.2 from the present place of posting and thus they have committed contempt of court. But the complainants have failed to point out as how the respondents have violated the status quo order granted by this Bench of Commission regarding employment of the complainant. There is no allegation of removal or termination of the complainant from employment. The respondents have specifically denied the allegation of contempt of Court. They have stated that complainant No.2 has been transferred in routine and that too within the city, which does not amount to contempt of court as the transfer was not covered in the status quo order granted by this Bench of Commission. The complainant has miserably failed to specify as to what contempt of the court has been committed and has not given the name of any person who has violated the stay order. In these circumstances the complaint is not maintainable.
5. It is worth to mention that this contempt case has arisen out of main case bearing No.4A(142)/2010-K which petition along with stay application has already been dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 29-10-2010 as such on this ground also the present complaint is not maintainable. In view of above facts and circumstances this compliant merits no consideration as such the same stands dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./6/NIRC Complaint dismissed.