1994 PLP 692 (PLC)
Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS LABOUR UNION (CBA) Versus MUHAMMAD KAMIL, CHAIRMAN, PLASTICRAFTERS
| Citation | 1994 PLP 692 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Tahseen Ahmed Bhatti Member |
| Parties | Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS LABOUR UNION (CBA) Versus MUHAMMAD KAMIL, CHAIRMAN, PLASTICRAFTERS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 692 (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 1994 PLP 692 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Tahseen Ahmed Bhatti Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 692 (PLC) (Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS LABOUR UNION (CBA) Versus MUHAMMAD KAMIL, CHAIRMAN, PLASTICRAFTERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- This complaint was filed on 7‑9‑1993 to take action against the contemners for contempt of Court under section 22‑C of the IRO, 1969. The contemners have filed the comments. On 26‑4‑1994 the complainant side filed the arguments in writing while Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for contemners submitted the arguments orally. Today the arguments of both the learned Advocates were once again heard.
- 3. In the arguments the learned Advocate for complainant it was specified that the CBA had filed the case under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 bearing Case No. 4A(65)/90‑K alleging unfair labour practice against the contemners and in which one of the issue framed was whether the charge -sheets issued to the complaints/petitioners were mala fide which was however answered in negative and the entire case was dismissed on 31‑8‑1991. It was said that against the said order Appeal No. 12(112)/91 was filed which was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. It was therefore argued that the setting aside of the impugned order, the finding on aforesaid issue also stood set aside and therefore it is to be understood that the charge‑sheets were mala fide and therefore termination of service/awarding of any penalty on the basis of said charge‑sheets would not only be illegal but also in the disobedience of the order in appeal. However, it was admitted that interim stay order was pending during the proceeding before Single Bench and also before the proceeding of appeal wherein it was directed that no final order was to be passed in the disciplinary proceeding. It was also admitted that the adverse orders have been passed after the conclusion of the proceeding before the Single Bench and appeal proceeding. Whereas the learned Advocate for respondents argued that no contempt has been committed and that there is no specific finding in the order of the Full Bench holding that the charge‑sheet against the complainant side are mala fide.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.22‑A(8)(g) & 22‑C‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑‑Complainant CBA, had alleged that contemners/employers who had removed office‑bearer of C.BA. and other active members of their union despite interim orders of Court, having committed disobedience, were liable to be punished accordingly‑‑ Interim order of Court clearly showed that no specific finding was given that charge‑sheet issued by employers against complainant employees was mala fide‑‑‑Members of complainant side had been terminated from service or awarded alleged penalty during period when there was no interim stay order operating‑‑‑None of contemners/employers had committed contempt of Court as alleged by C.B.A. in circumstances. Nishat Warsi for the Complainant. S.M. Yaqoob for the Contemner.
Judgment & Decree
Nishat Warsi for the Complainant. S.M. Yaqoob for the Contemner. This complaint was filed on 7‑9‑1993 to take action against the contemners for contempt of Court under section 22‑C of the IRO, 1969. The contemners have filed the comments. On 26‑4‑1994 the complainant side filed the arguments in writing while Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for contemners submitted the arguments orally. Today the arguments of both the learned Advocates were once again heard.
2. It is the case of the complainant, CBA that the contemners have removed the office‑bearers of the CBA and other active members of their union despite the interim orders and therefore they have committed disobedience.
3. In the arguments the learned Advocate for complainant it was specified that the CBA had filed the case under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 bearing Case No. 4A(65)/90‑K alleging unfair labour practice against the contemners and in which one of the issue framed was whether the charge -sheets issued to the complaints/petitioners were mala fide which was however answered in negative and the entire case was dismissed on 31‑8‑1991. It was said that against the said order Appeal No. 12(112)/91 was filed which was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. It was therefore argued that the setting aside of the impugned order, the finding on aforesaid issue also stood set aside and therefore it is to be understood that the charge‑sheets were mala fide and therefore termination of service/awarding of any penalty on the basis of said charge‑sheets would not only be illegal but also in the disobedience of the order in appeal. However, it was admitted that interim stay order was pending during the proceeding before Single Bench and also before the proceeding of appeal wherein it was directed that no final order was to be passed in the disciplinary proceeding. It was also admitted that the adverse orders have been passed after the conclusion of the proceeding before the Single Bench and appeal proceeding. Whereas the learned Advocate for respondents argued that no contempt has been committed and that there is no specific finding in the order of the Full Bench holding that the charge‑sheet against the complainant side are mala fide.
4. The perusal of the order in appeal shows that there is no specific finding that the charge‑sheet against the side of complainant are mala fide. It is also seen that the members of the complainant side have been terminated from service or awarded penalty during the period when there was no interim stay order operating. In view of above circumstances it is held that none of the contemners has committed contempt of Court and therefore this complaint is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./211/NIRC Complaint dismissed.