1989 PLP 600 (PLC)
MANAGING PARTNER, MESSRS MALIK & CO. SUCCESSOR OF MUGHAL INDUSTRIES RE‑ROLLING MILLS Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL
| Citation | 1989 PLP 600 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MANAGING PARTNER, MESSRS MALIK & CO. SUCCESSOR OF MUGHAL INDUSTRIES RE‑ROLLING MILLS Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 600 (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 1989 PLP 600 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 600 (PLC) (MANAGING PARTNER, MESSRS MALIK & CO. SUCCESSOR OF MUGHAL INDUSTRIES RE‑ROLLING MILLS Versus MUHAMMAD IOBAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Scope‑‑Redress of individual grievance‑ Collective Bargaining Agent cannot invoke provisions of S. 25‑A for its own benefits‑‑Petitioner, General Secretary of Workers Union, seeking direction against employer not to violate operative settlement which provided that in case factory is re‑opened workers previously employed would be taken back on duty‑ Labour Court passing orders that all workers will be re‑called if factory restarts‑ Labour Court, held, not justified in passing such order and stay order could be issued to the extent that petitioner would be recalled if factory restarts‑‑Order of Labour Court modified in revision directing that if petitioner was employee of respondent employer alleged settlement should not be violated so far it benefits the petitioner. Respondent in person
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Scope‑‑Redress of individual grievance‑ Collective Bargaining Agent cannot invoke provisions of S. 25‑A for its own benefits‑‑Petitioner, General Secretary of Workers Union, seeking direction against employer not to violate operative settlement which provided that in case factory is re‑opened workers previously employed would be taken back on duty‑ Labour Court passing orders that all workers will be re‑called if factory restarts‑ Labour Court, held, not justified in passing such order and stay order could be issued to the extent that petitioner would be recalled if factory restarts‑‑Order of Labour Court modified in revision directing that if petitioner was employee of respondent employer alleged settlement should not be violated so far it benefits the petitioner. H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Respondent in person This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4‑2‑1989 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The learned lower Court has vide the impugned order directed that the petitioner shall not violate the provisions of settlement dated 6‑12‑1988 and in case the factory is re‑opened the workers previously employed by him would be taken on duty. Since the union whose General Secretary, the petitioner is, is alleged to be not a C.BA., the learned lower Court was not justified in ordering that all the workers will be re‑called if the factory is restarted. The grievance petition was not brought by any C.BA. nor a C.BA. can come under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for its own interest. The respondent brought his grievance petition for his personal benefit, therefore, the stay order could be issued only to the extent that if the factory was restarted, the respondent would be re‑called. The petitioner is contesting the claim of the respondent to be its employee, therefore, the stay order should have been conditional.
3. As a result the revision is partly accepted and the impugned decision is modified directing that if the respondent was the employee of the petitioner, the settlement dated 6‑12‑1988 so far as it benefits to him shall not be violated and if the factory is re‑opened, the respondent would be recalled on duty. A.E./647/Lb. P Revision partly accepted.