1986 PLP 1168 (PLC)
FAZALUR REHMAN Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1168 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IVth Labour Court Sind |
| Bench Members | A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | FAZALUR REHMAN Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1168 (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 1986 PLP 1168 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IVth Labour Court Sind bench comprising: A. J. Bachani, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1168 (PLC) (FAZALUR REHMAN Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Applicants. Muhammad Humayun for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Filing of‑‑Grievance petition of individual worker can be filed by worker himself‑‑Collective Bargaining Agent cannot file petition on behalf of worker. Shamsi Cloth and General Mills v. Shamsi Cloth and General Mills Workers' Union 1986 P L C 880 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Shamsi Cloth and General Mills v. Shamsi Cloth and General Mills Workers' Union 1986 P L C 880 ref. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Applicants. Muhammad Humayun for Respondents. In this matter, the objection raised by Mr. Humayun, the counsel for the respondent is of substantial nature and the Court fully agrees that individual grievance can only be filed by the worker himself. In this respect reference is made to decision of Shamsi Cloth and General A Mills v. Shamsi Cloth and General Mills Workers Union of the Hon'blel Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sind 1986 P L C 880.
2. The Court, therefore, is of the view that Collective Bargaining Agent cannot filed application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. the section speaks of individual grievance to be taken cognizance by the labour Court.
3. It is next contended by Mr. Humayun that notice by the Collective Bargaining Agent is not in confirmity with the requirement of section 25‑A. The contention of Mr. Humayun the counsel for the respondent is well‑founded after referring to section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The Court is also of the view that by this time through number of decisions in Labour Court litigants are well‑aware of the period of limitation and the notices sent by the workers individually under section 25‑A, I.R.O. Of course nothing prevents the worker to come for the redress of the legal grievance, as it is contended that malik allowance was not paid, but the worker is to cross the hurdle of the time limitation and the cause of action in future application. The application accordingly is dismissed on point of law. A. E. Application dismissed.