1990 PLP 802 (PLC)
PAKISTAN HERALD WORKERS' UNION through General Secretary Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others
| Citation | 1990 PLP 802 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN HERALD WORKERS' UNION through General Secretary Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 802 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 802 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 802 (PLC) (PAKISTAN HERALD WORKERS' UNION through General Secretary Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Amjad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Humayun for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 10th and 16h May, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Grievance petition filed on behalf of workers‑‑‑Petition not riled by individual workers collectively‑‑ Petitioner did not disclose name or names of workers on whose behalf the petition was filed‑‑‑General reference to grievance of workers without mentioning names of aggrieved workers could not make the grievance petition as one on behalf of workers‑‑‑Held, although subsection (4) of section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, authorised the Collective Bargaining Agent to take a dispute between a worker or workers on one hand and establishment on the other, by means of a petition under section 25‑A of Ordinance, yet this did not mean that grievance petition could be filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent in its own name‑‑‑Provision of S. 25‑A(4) only authorised the Collective Bargaining Agent to agitate a dispute before a Labour Court in the name and on behalf of aggrieved worker.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 2‑2‑1986 passed in Appeal No.KAR‑170/85. By the impugned order the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., filed by the Petitioner was not maintainable and dismissed the same. In a similar case decided by us on 26‑3‑1990 (C.P. No. D‑1179/87 M/s. A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another, we held that a grievance petition filed by a Collective Bargaining Agent in its own name for enforcement of the right of an individual worker under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the above case and contended that (1) the above case was decided ex parte in the absence of the respondent and that (1I) at the time of deciding the above case we did not take into consideration subsection (4) of section 25‑A of the I.R.O., which gave right to a Collective Bargaining Agent to take the dispute to a Labour Court and that (ii) from the contents of their petition under section 25‑A of I.R.0. read as a whole it would appear that the grievance petition was not filed by the petitioner but was on behalf of individual worker. There can be no doubt, after reading the petition filed by the petitioner under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before the Labour Court, that it has been filed by the petitioner and not by any individual worker or workers collectively. The petition did not disclose the name or names of the workers on whose behalf the petition was filed. A general reference to the grievance of the workers without mentioning the names of the aggrieved workers cannot make the grievance petition as one on behalf of the workers. No doubt subsection (4) of section 25‑A of the I.R.O. authorised the C.B.A. to take a dispute between a worker or workers on the one hand and the establishment on the other, by means of a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., but this did not mean that the grievance petition could be filed by the C.BA. in its own name. This provision only authorised the C.BA. to agitate a dispute before a Labour Court in the name and on behalf of the aggrieved worker. We, therefore, find no distinction between the present case and the case decided by us earlier (C.P. No. D‑1179/87). No case for interference with the order of respondent No.1 is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their respective costs. M.Y.H./P‑150/K Petition dismissed.