1984 PLP 177 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ISLAM Versus Syed AMIR ALI, DIRECTOR, AUTO MACHINE TOOLS &
| Citation | 1984 PLP 177 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISLAM Versus Syed AMIR ALI, DIRECTOR, AUTO MACHINE TOOLS & |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 177 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 177 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 177 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ISLAM Versus Syed AMIR ALI, DIRECTOR, AUTO MACHINE TOOLS &). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riaz Anwar for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Complainant Muhammad Islam was employed as Cook with the Auto Machine Tools and Parts Industries Limited. A union was formed in the establishment, about which an intimation was conveyed to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 31st July, 1983 and to the Managing Director on the 7th of August, 1983. The union was registered on 25th August, 1983. While the registration proceedings were pending, the respondent decided to terminate the services of Muhammad Islam on 18th August, 1983. The complainant states that the matter was brought to the notice of Registrar of Trade Unions Lahore who wrote to the respondent on 25th August, 1983 to refrain from any unlawful action but invain. On this basis charge was framed against Syed Amar Ali accused that he terminated the service of Muhammad Islam during the pendency of Registration of the union even though the name of the said officer was notified to the employer in writing. Further that be terminated his services by reason that the complainant took part in trade union activites. The counsel for the accused states that even if charges were accepted to be true for the sake of arguments, the same would not be triable by this Commission. Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik states that the right to choose remedy vested to the complainant, he had choosen his remedy under section 15 of the I. R. O. 1969. He said that he can avail the remedy under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., under section 8‑A of the
1. R. O. or under section 53 of the I. R. O., 1969. I, however, do not agree with him that a specific provision has been provided under the law to deal with the case of special nature only that provision could be availed and the general provisions could not be invoked. In this view of the matter the complainant could invoke the provision of section 8‑A read with section 53 of the
1. R. O., 1969 if he feels so impelled. The general provision of section 15 read with section 53 could not be availed. The complaint is consequently dismissed. The accused is acquitted. A. E. Complaint dismissed.