1970 PLP 53 (PLC)
AFZAL ALI Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑
| Citation | 1970 PLP 53 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Industrial Appellate Tribunal, West Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AFZAL ALI Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 53 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 53 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal, West Pakistan bench comprising: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 53 (PLC) (AFZAL ALI Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER‑). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI, of 1968),
S. O. 18(4) Applicant neither officer of a registered Trade Union nor establish ing deprivation of benefits accruing under ‑Ordinance‑Applica tion, in circumstances, dismissed. Abdul Majeed Qureshi for Appellant. Date of hearing; 29th November 1968. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman, Industrial Court (Northern Zone) Lahore, dated 27th June 1968. The. impugned order was passed on an application under sections 11 and 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance; 1968,. and Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these. 2. The petitioner‑was employed in‑the Press of Progressive Paper3 Limited, Lahore. His services were terminated with effect from 16th March 19,68, on the ground of misconduct. 3. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance of 1968; do not confer any power on the Court in the absence of an application made to it on failure of conciliation proceedings. In the second place, he came to the conclusion that Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders also would not help the appellant, as under the proviso of the Order the aggrieved workman asking aid against, his dismissal, should be an office‑bearer of the Union. 4. I agree with the conclusion of the learned Chairman that sections 11 and 12 of'‑the Ordinance of 1968, have no application to the circumstances of the case for the reasons that 1 have already given in Appeal No. MWI‑106 of 1968. The proviso to Order .18(6), reads as under :‑ "Provided that no complaint shall lie against as order of termination of employment of a workman unless the workman concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the workman concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade Union of not, has been deprived of benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance." 5. Admittedly, the appellant is not an officer of a registered Trade Union. Moreover Mr. Qureshi, the Representative of th6 appellant ‑has failed to satisfy as to how the Appellant was deprived of the benefits which accrued to him under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.