1978 PLP 573 (PLC)
LABOUR UNION Versus AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TORNAB
| Citation | 1978 PLP 573 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court N.W. F. P. |
| Bench Members | Qazi Hamiduddin, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | LABOUR UNION Versus AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TORNAB |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 573 (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 1978 PLP 573 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court N.W. F. P. bench comprising: Qazi Hamiduddin, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 573 (PLC) (LABOUR UNION Versus AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TORNAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 32‑Industrial dispute‑Demand regarding promotions and quota in recruitment for children of employees‑Matters governed by rules framed by Government ‑ Interference by Labour Court, held, un warranted‑Demand, however, observed to be reasonable and respondent advised to accept same. Ziaullah Khan for Petition Nisar Ahmad Khan for Respond6nt.
Judgment & Decree
Ziaullah Khan for Petition Nisar Ahmad Khan for Respond6nt. This is a petition under section 32 of the I. R. O. The case of the petitioner‑Union is that as conciliation proceedings have failed, therefore, the Court should adjudicate the demands and give its award on the industrial dispute. The case was contested. The learned representative of the petitioner, however, stated that except Demand No. 7 the other demands have been initially settled between the parties. Demand No. 7 consists of the following two portions: (1) Promotion should be made on the basis of the seniority and qualification. (2) Children of the existing employees should be given preference in recruitment provide they have equal qualification with the other candidates. From the statement of P. W.
1. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan. Agri cultural Engineer, it is evident that members of the petitioner's Union are Government Servants and are paid through its funds. The witness further stated that his Department had its own rules for governing the terms and conditions of the service of its employees and that these rules had been framed by the Government. He further stated that the vacancies in the Department were filled through proper test after regular advertisement. He stated that there were different Committees constituted at different levels for appointment in different grades. In these circumstances I am of the view that it will not be proper for this Court to give its own awards because it will make the confusion worse A confounded and will not be conducive to peace and harmony. The Govern ment being the employer have the power to make rules for promotion and recruitment and any interference by this Court will be quite unwarranted. However, I cannot refrain from observing that the demands, which form the subject‑matter of the present proceedings are very modest and reasonable and the respondent will be well advised if these are accepted. The Petition stands decided accordingly.