1996 PLP 685 (PLC)
through General Secretary Versus AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED
| Citation | 1996 PLP 685 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | M. M. Pirzada, Member |
| Parties | through General Secretary Versus AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 685 (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 1996 PLP 685 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: M. M. Pirzada, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 685 (PLC) (through General Secretary Versus AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafique Qureshi for Petitioner.
- S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A(8)(g) & 25-A
National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Function) Regulation, 1973, Regln. 32(2)
Petition before National Industrial Relations Commission
Petitioner union which filed the petition against employers being not Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) at time of filing the petition, could not file the same on behalf of employees, especially when employees had already filed grievance petitions before Labour Court against their retrenchment under S. 25 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1980 PLC 2 and 1982 PLC. 283 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(" 70575) (6) Ali Muhammad s/o Suleman (" 70554) (7) Faiz Muhammad s/o Yar Muhammad (" 70349) (8) Fazal Hussain s/o Muhammad Zaman (" 70023) (9) Salamuddin s/o Islamuddin (" 70792) Para. No. 9.‑‑The management of the respondents establishment is stilt following its anti‑labour, anti‑law policy and illegal unfair labour practice and now there is a confirmed apprehension that the respondents establishment will further unlawfully and illegally terminate/dismiss the services of the petitioner and other office‑bearers and permanent workers or/and transfer the permanent workers as the management of the respondents has terminated/dismissed the permanent service of the under‑noted workers: (1) Amin Saeed s/o Muhammad Bas (Hawala No. 70488) (2) Amir Zada s/o Zardad Khan (" 70261) (3)Habibullah s/o Muhammadullah and transferred the following permanent worker: (" 70978) (1) Habibur Rehman s/o Ghulam Jan (" 70398) (2) Muhammad Iqbal s/o Suleman and others (" 70600)
2. The petitioner has prayed that respondents and persons connected with them be directed not to terminate, dismiss, transfer the applicant and other office‑bearers/active members and other permanent workers from the service and refrain from unfair labour practice and creating impediment in the promotion of trade union activities.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has taken up a legal plea that No. 1: the petitioner‑union is not C.B.A., therefore, non‑C.B.A. cannot file an` petition on behalf of the workers of the present nature in view of the cases '' reported in 1980 PLC 2 and 1982 PLC 283 and a Full Bench decision of this Commission No. 7(13)/89‑K, No. 2 it is admittedly the case of the petitioner that the persons showed in paras. 5 and 9 have already retrenched for which they have filed cases under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 before Sindh Labour Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same merits to be dismissed.
4. In view of the facts that the petitioner‑union at the time when they had filed the petition admittedly was not C. B. A. and I am in agreement with the learned counsel this petition therefore merits no consideration as para. from this the rights of the C.B.A. are conferred as mentioned under the I.R.O., 1969 as enumerated in sections 22(12)(a)(b), 23‑A, 25‑A, 26(1) and 49 of the I.R.O., 1969 and not beyond that. In the present case the petitioner which is not C.B.A. even does not base its rights as stated above. Under the circumstances, I dismiss this petition on this ground that non‑C.B.A. cannot file this petition to represent the aggrieved person/for whom the remedy is available under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. The interim orders already passed are also recalled. H.B.T./258/NIRC Petition dismissed.