1978 PLC 224 (PLP)
EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL TROUGH ITS MANAGEMENT
| Citation | 1978 PLC 224 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | 1st Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Malik Lehrasap Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL TROUGH ITS MANAGEMENT |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLC 224 (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 1978 PLC 224 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the 1st Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Malik Lehrasap Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLC 224 (PLP) (EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL TROUGH ITS MANAGEMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 4. In rebuttal Mr. Waseem Sajjad, Advocate Counsel for the respondent testified that no undertaking was given to the petitioner that the matter would be sorted out through bilateral negotiations. He stated that the withdrawal of the previous application was unconditional.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 34‑Previous application for enforcement of rights withdrawn by petitioner‑Union unconditionally‑Second petition, held, not legally competent and hence dismissed. Akhtar Ali Pirzada, General Secretary for the Union. Waseem Sajjad for the Management.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 34‑Previous application for enforcement of rights withdrawn by petitioner‑Union unconditionally‑Second petition, held, not legally competent and hence dismissed. Akhtar Ali Pirzada, General Secretary for the Union. Waseem Sajjad for the Management. Hotel Intercontinental Employees' Union, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner‑Union filed the under consideration application under sec tion 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the Manage ment of Hotel Intercontinental. Lahore for the enforcement of the rights as detailed in the Annexure 'B' to the application. It is contended that those rights were guaranteed to the Union by the Management as a result of settle ment dated 3rd April 1972.
2. The respondent resisted the application and pleaded that the settlement had since expired and that previously an application was filed by the petitioner‑Union for the enforcement of these rights and that applica tion was with drawn by the petitioner therefore, the present petition was not competent.
3. Parties were asked to lead evidence. Mr. Akhtar Ali Pirzada, General Secretary of the petitioner‑Union appeared on behalf of the petitioner and stated that previously an application was bled by the petitioner‑Union for the enforcement of the Rights, which are sought to be enforced through the present petition. He further admitted that the said previous application was withdrawn by the petitioner‑Union because the respondent had agreed to sort out the matter by mutual negotiations.
4. In rebuttal Mr. Waseem Sajjad, Advocate Counsel for the respondent testified that no undertaking was given to the petitioner that the matter would be sorted out through bilateral negotiations. He stated that the withdrawal of the previous application was unconditional.
5. It transpires, from the parties evidence that the previous application filed by the petitioner‑Union for the enforcement of the rights which are sought to be enforced through the present petition was withdrawn by the petitioner‑Union unconditionally. The second petition is therefore legally not competent and is accordingly dismissed.