1999 PLP 49 (PLC)
AMIR BAZ and 3 others Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through Managing Director, Lahore
| Citation | 1999 PLP 49 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Bahader Ali, Member |
| Parties | AMIR BAZ and 3 others Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through Managing Director, Lahore |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 49 (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 49 (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 49 (PLC) (AMIR BAZ and 3 others Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through Managing Director, Lahore). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Representative for Petitioners
- Salim Baig for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22-A(8)(g)
Petition before National Industrial Relations Commission
Employees who claimed to have attained status of permanent workmen, had prayed in their petition before National Industrial Relations Commission that employer should be directed to confirm them as permanent workmen
National Industrial Relations Commission had got jurisdiction only to entertain and adjudicate upon cases of unfair labour practice
Employees in their petition having not made any averment relating to any act or event, which could be said to constitute an act of unfair labour practice by employer, National Industrial Relations Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon matter of their confirmation as permanent workmen
Petition of employees which was devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The brief and relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioners Nos.l and 2 are serving as casual Drivers and petitioners Nos.3 and 4 are working as Fitter Maintenance and maintenance helpers since 1988 and 1993 respectively. They claim that after completion of 90 days they have attained the status of permanent workmen in the respondent company. The respondent company have filled in vacancies of Drivers and Helpers in hundred but they have not made the petitioners permanent incumbents. This is all because of the petitioners being interested in becoming regular member of the trade union existing in the respondents Establishment. The petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondent to confirm the petitioners as permanent workman of the respondents company. The respondent put his appearance through counsel who has filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections therein. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record. Learned counsel for the parties have also argued their respective cases at quite some length which I have considered carefully. It is established and settled law that this Commission has got the jurisdiction only to entertain and adjudicate upon the cases of unfair labour practice. While perusing the petition I have found no averment made therein of any act or event which could lead to constitute an act of unfair labour practice. Mere allegation devoid of detailed/events and circumstances which could lead to commission of an act of unfair labour practice is not sufficient to entertain and adjudicate upon by this Commission. This Commission has no jurisdiction to decide such like cases. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./312/N.I.R.C Petition dismissed.