1995 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))
PARKE DAVIS EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus Messrs PARKE DAVIS & CO. LTD., KARACHI through its Director of Human Resources
| Citation | 1995 PLP 731 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PARKE DAVIS EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus Messrs PARKE DAVIS & CO. LTD., KARACHI through its Director of Human Resources |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 731 (PLC(CS)) (PARKE DAVIS EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus Messrs PARKE DAVIS & CO. LTD., KARACHI through its Director of Human Resources). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Settlement‑‑‑Interpretation‑‑‑Settlement arrived at between C.BA. and Management regarding gratuity, provided that question concerning improvements of gratuity benefits would be taken up by the company with the Head Office and when approval was received steps would be taken to effect the change‑‑‑Matter was referred to Head Office and Head Office proposed certain improvements, but matter stopped there‑‑‑Improvements suggested by Head Office were not referred to C.BA. nor was any supplementary settlement arrived at‑‑‑Proposed changes thus could .not be considered to be a settlement within the meaning of S. 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Application for interpretation of proposal for improvement, was not maintainable in circumstances. Ghuncha Gul for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Settlement‑‑‑Interpretation‑‑‑Settlement arrived at between C.BA. and Management regarding gratuity, provided that question concerning improvements of gratuity benefits would be taken up by the company with the Head Office and when approval was received steps would be taken to effect the change‑‑‑Matter was referred to Head Office and Head Office proposed certain improvements, but matter stopped there‑‑‑Improvements suggested by Head Office were not referred to C.BA. nor was any supplementary settlement arrived at‑‑‑Proposed changes thus could .not be considered to be a settlement within the meaning of S. 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Application for interpretation of proposal for improvement, was not maintainable in circumstances. Ghuncha Gul for Applicant. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1995. This is an application under section 50 of the I.R.O., 1969 for interpretation of an alleged settlement between the C.BA. of Parke Davis Employees' Union and the Management of M/s. Parke Davis & Company.
2. According to para. 22 of the settlement regarding gratuity it was provided that the question concerning improvements of gratuity benefits would be taken up by the company with the Head Office and when approval is received steps will be taken to effect the change. The matter was then referred to the Head Office. The Head Office proposed certain improvements but the matter stopped there. These improvements suggested by the Head Office were not referred to the C.BA. nor was any supplementary settlement arrived at. The proposed changes, cannot be considered to be a settlement within the meaning of section 50 of the I.R.O. This application for interpretation of the proposal for improvements is not therefore maintainable. Since the proposal is yet to be agreed to by the C. B.A. and made part of the settlement these steps have not been taken. Application is therefore dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2488/Lb.S Application dismissed.