P L D 1977 Supreme Court 383 (PLP)
BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN)-LTD.-Appellant. Versus LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1977 Supreme Court 383 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN)-LTD.-Appellant. Versus LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1977 Supreme Court 383 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1977 Supreme Court 383 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1977 Supreme Court 383 (PLP) (BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN)-LTD.-Appellant. Versus LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Fazlur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ismail Tejani, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. I and 2.
- Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing : 28th April 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 27th June 1973, in Constitutional Petition No. 92 of 1972). S. 2 (xxviii)-"Workman"-Salesman appointed in Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd.-A workman. Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. v. The Conciliator (appointed by the Government of Sind) and 6 others P L D 1977 S C 237 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.--Respondent No. 3 Union Karkonan-e-Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Abbottabad is a registered Trade Union representing inter alia the "salesmen" in the service of the Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi. The Union raised certain demands on behalf of the workers and issued a notice to the company enclosing therewith the charter of demands. But the said Management refused to enter upon any negotiation with the said Union on the plea that it was an illegally constituted body. On 23-8-1971 the company filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging that the salesmen employed by it were not "workman" within the definition of the term and therefore the Union, having salesmen as its members, was illegally constituted. On the 7th of November, 1973, Labour Court (N: W. F. P.), Peshawar accepted the application of the appellant-Company holding that a "salesman" in the company was not a workman and that the respondent-Union was not a lawfully constituted body and the notices issued by it were invalid. The respondent-Union went up in appeal against the award. On the 21st of March, 1974, the Labour Appellate Tribunal (N: W. F. P.), Peshawar accepted their appeal and set aside the award made by the Labour Court. This gave rise to a writ petition filed by the company against the respondents before the Peshawar High Court challenging the validity of the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. But a Division Bench of that Court dismissed the writ petition on the 30th of July, 1975. In these circumstances the company filed a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. This Court granted the leave to appeal to consider the question as to whether a salesman employed by the Company was a workman within the definition of section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In C. A. K-14 of 1973, Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. v. The Conciliator (appointed by the Government of Sind) and 6 others (P L D 1977 S C 237) an identical question was raised. For our detailed reasons recorded in that appeal we have held that a salesman employed in the appellant-Company is a workman within the definition of the term. This appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. But there is no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case. S. A. H. Appeal dismissed.