1999 PLP 84 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus PRINCIPAL, DIVISIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SAHIWAL and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP 84 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Bahader Ali, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus PRINCIPAL, DIVISIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SAHIWAL and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 84 (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 1999 PLP 84 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Bahader Ali, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 84 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD HABIB Versus PRINCIPAL, DIVISIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SAHIWAL and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(xiv), 15 & 22-A(8)(g)
Unfair labour practice on part of employer
Petitioner who was dismissed from service for serious misconduct of tampering date of birth of students had only attempted to invoke jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission by writing down in his petition words "unfair labour practice"
Petitioner had neither averred nor narrated any event or circumstance which could lead to constitute an act of unfair practice nor he had appended` with his petition any document which could prove that petitioner was an active member of some union-- Petitioner also could not prove that school in which he was working as a teacher was an establishment as envisaged under S. 2(xiv) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Petition filed by petitioner, was rightly dismissed by National Industrial Relations Commission being not competent. 1991 P L C 557 ref
Judgment & Decree
The brief and relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Divisional Public School, Sahiwal. He was granted pay scale of Assistant by the respondents vide Annexure ' A' in the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that on joining Punjab Teachers Union he was victimised by way of dismissal from service on 28‑2‑1995. Aggrieved by the order dated 28‑2‑1995 the petitioner has brought this the instant petition alleging that the action of the respondents is an unfair labour practice on their part and ultimately prayed for its quashment. The respondents have vehemently denied the averments made in the petition by filing written statement wherein they have raised certain preliminary objections. I have perused the pleadings of the parties and also record available on the files. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length. The main objection raised by the respondents is about the jurisdiction of this Commission. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon 1991 PLC page 557 that Educational Institution is not an establishment as envisaged by Ordinance 1972, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 section 2(xiv) Establishment definition. The learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the petitioner was dismissed from service oh 28‑2‑1995 for serious misconduct of tampering dates of birth of students. He has come to the Court with unclean hands, so he is not entitled for any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner has only attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission by writing down in his petition the word "unfair labour practice" neither he has appended with his petition any document which may even prove that the petitioner is an active member of some union. The petitioner, has neither averred or narrated any event or circumstance which may lead to constitute an act of unfair labour practice. The petition fails on both the points. (i) The petitioner has awfully failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice. (ii) The respondent is not: establishment as envisaged in the I.R.O.1969. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./313/N.I.R.C Petition dismissed