1988 PLP 361 (PLC)
WORKERS UNION (C.B.A.) Versus Messrs MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS
| Citation | 1988 PLP 361 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhari, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | WORKERS UNION (C.B.A.) Versus Messrs MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 361 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 361 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhari, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 361 (PLC) (WORKERS UNION (C.B.A.) Versus Messrs MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant. Raees Mushtaq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th August, 1987.
- 3. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the applicant union and Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent management and have also very carefully perused the relevant clauses of both the settlement in dispute. I am of the view that there is no force whatsoever in the contentions of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi. The agreement of 1982 was superseded by an agreement of 1987. It means that the terms and conditions of agreement, entered into 1987 held good. Therefore, the present application made by the applicant union is now dead hence it is accordingly dismissed. However, Mr.Wasiullah Qureshi finds that some other forum will give him benefits in this respect. The period of limitation may be considered by the learned Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S.50‑‑Interpretation of Settlement‑‑Settlement already superseded by subsequent Settlement=‑Application for interpretation of identical clause in previous Settlement, held, became redundent. Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant. Raees Mushtaq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th August, 1987. This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by the applicant union for interpretation of certain clauses of a settlement arrived at between the parties and signed in June 1982 for a period of two years and the latest settlement between the same parties signed on 10‑2‑1987 to be effective from 1‑6‑1982 to 31‑5‑1988. The most important clause, a disputed matter between the parties, was. Demand No. 5‑A (2) of Settlement, dated 5‑6‑1982,, under which Cost of Living Allowance amounting to Rs.150 vas merged in basic pay and hence, with effect from 1‑6‑1982, it is no more an allowance, but formed a part of the basic pay. But, he case of the applicant union was that the respondent management and allowed 13.5$ increase after excluding an amount of Rs.150 from .he basic pay (wage).
2. The case of the respondent management was that the dispute was a result of the misreading of the clause and that vide letter, dated 7‑4‑1984, the applicant union had itself agitated that Rs.150 (Cost of Living Allowance) be 'not treated as part of wages on which a joint meeting was held and the matter was agreed upon. Therefore, the respondent management claimed to be justified in claiming set‑off a huge amount which was given to each worker at the time of settlement, but as a gesture of goodwill since favourable offer was made.
3. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the applicant union and Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent management and have also very carefully perused the relevant clauses of both the settlement in dispute. I am of the view that there is no force whatsoever in the contentions of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi. The agreement of 1982 was superseded by an agreement of 1987. It means that the terms and conditions of agreement, entered into 1987 held good. Therefore, the present application made by the applicant union is now dead hence it is accordingly dismissed. However, Mr.Wasiullah Qureshi finds that some other forum will give him benefits in this respect. The period of limitation may be considered by the learned Labour Court.
4. Therefore, the present application is accordingly disposed of. A.E. /1075/Lb.S Order accordingly.