2006 PLP 481 (PLC)
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Head of Human Resources Division Versus M.C.B. STAFF UNION OF PAKISTAN through President and 2 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP 481 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Head of Human Resources Division Versus M.C.B. STAFF UNION OF PAKISTAN through President and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 481 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 481 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 481 (PLC) (MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Head of Human Resources Division Versus M.C.B. STAFF UNION OF PAKISTAN through President and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faisal Mahmood Ghani for Petitioner.
- 4. I have heard Mr. Faisal Mehmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the petitioner and I have gone through the case filed very minutely.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22-A(8)(g)
National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln. 32(2)(c)
Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S. 27-B
Case of petitioner-Bank was that two of its dismissed employees who after dismissal from service of the Bank had become outsider, not only were posing themselves to be the President and Patron of Trade Union, but also were doing such activities which were prejudicial to smooth running of the Bank
Further allegation was that said two dismissed employees were publishing and distributing pamphlets thereby inciting employees of the Bank to disturb the peace, tranquility and smooth running of the Bank
Bank had prayed that said two dismissed employees should be restrained from posing themselves to be President and Patron of the Trade Union
Under provisions of S. 27-B of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, specific prohibition was provided that one who was not an employee of the Bank, could not become member of the Trade Union
Dismissed employees of the Bank were debarred from claiming office-bearership from outside quota
Accepting petition tiled by the Bank it was directed that two dismissed employees should not pose themselves as President or Patron of the Union nor should claim themselves to be affiliated with Union in any capacity. Bank of America Employees' Union v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PLC 143 ref. Respondents ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
ALI NAWAZ A CHANNA MEMBER, NIRO
The petitioner Bank has filed this petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 and along with it had filed stay application under Regulation 32 (2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 against MCB Staff Union of Pakistan, Malik Ejaz, claiming to be the President of the said union and Saeed Ghani, claiming and posing to be Patron of the said union. The case of the petitioner in brief is that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the dismissed employees of the Bank and by virtue of section 27-B inserted in Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 the outsider cannot become the member of any union in the Bank and in spite of that the respondents are not only posing themselves to be the President and Patron of respondent No.1 union but are also doing such activities which are prejudicial to the smooth running of the Bank. They have alleged that in the garb of President and Patron, respondents Nos.2 and 3 are publishing and distributing pamphlets thereby inciting the employees of the bank to disturb the peace, tranquillity and smooth running of the Bank. The petitioners have prayed that respondents Nos.2 and 3 may be restrained from posing themselves to be President and Patron of the union.
2. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed written comments but after filing written comments they remained absent, hence they were declared ex parte. They did not pursue the matter after filing written comments, which indicated that the respondents have no plausible case therefore they found safety and refuge in becoming ex parte.
3. The petitioner-Bank was called to file ex parte proof. Accordingly such affidavit-in-ex parte proof was filed.
4. I have heard Mr. Faisal Mehmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the petitioner and I have gone through the case filed very minutely.
5. There is. no doubt that S.27-B was inserted in Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, which Legislation has been held to be a valid peace of Legislation as held by Division Bench of Sindh High Court in its judgment reported as Bank of America employees' Union v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PLC
143. In this section 27-B there is specific prohibition that who is not an employee of the Bank cannot become member of the union. In the above said authority it was also held that the outsider quota of 25% will not apply in the Bank as there is specific prohibition in S.27-G that who ever is not employee of the bank cannot become member of any union as such in view of about authority respondents Nos.2 and 3 are debarred from claiming office-bearership from outside quota.
5. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 appear to be posing themselves as President and Patron, respectively illegally and have no legal authority to claim themselves as such due to prohibition of section 27-B.
6. In view of above stated facts, circumstances and reasons I allow the petition of the petitioner-Bank and direct that respondents Nos.2 and 3 should not pose themselves as President of Patron nor should claim themselves to be affiliated with the union in any capacity and in any manner whatsoever. Order accordingly. Announced in open Court. H.B.T./108/N.I.R.C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.