1987 PLP 415 (PLC)
WORKERS UNION Versus Messrs YOUSUF TEXTILE PRINTING MILLS
| Citation | 1987 PLP 415 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IIIrd Labour Court Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Ahmed Junejo, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | WORKERS UNION Versus Messrs YOUSUF TEXTILE PRINTING MILLS |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 415 (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 1987 PLP 415 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IIIrd Labour Court Sind bench comprising: Ali Ahmed Junejo, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 415 (PLC) (WORKERS UNION Versus Messrs YOUSUF TEXTILE PRINTING MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 51‑‑Application under S. 51‑‑Payment of benefits‑‑Application under S.51, Industrial Relations Ordinance moved by Collective Bargaining Agent on behalf of all workers‑ Individual workers not approaching Labour Court for direction to employer to pay benefits‑‑Only individual workers could approach Labour Court for such payment under S ‑51‑‑Application moved by Collective Bargaining Agent, held, was not maintainable and in absence of an application by workers, Labour Court was not competent to pass an order as claimed by Union. Mushtaq Ahmed Siddique for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
4. The applicant filed the ex parte proof.
5. I have heard the representative appearing for applicant and perused the record of the case.
6. In order to appreciate the provision of law, I would like to produce provision of section 51 of I.R.O. which reads as under: ‑
51. Recovery of money due from an employer under a settlement of award.‑‑ (1) Any money due from an employer under a settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or, Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand (if, upon the application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court so directs.) (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, under settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit shall be computed may, subject to the rules made under this Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection (1) and paid to the workman concerned within a specific date.
7. According to provisions of section 51 of I.R.O. 1969, any money due from an employer under any settlement or under any award or decision of the arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as public demand, if upon the application of the person entitled to the money the Labour Court so directs.
8. In this case admittedly the General Secretary of C. B. A. Union approached this Court for an order to direct the respondents to pay the benefits as per agreement arrived at between the parties.
9. The individual workers have not approached this Court for any direction to the employer to pay the benefits. In absence of an application by the workers, in my opinion this Court is not competent to pass an order as claimed by the applicant Union.
10. The perusal of the provisions of section 51 of I. R.O. do not entitle the C.B.A. Union to approach the Labour Court on behalf of all workers for the relief claimed in the present case. The provisions R entitled the workers to approach the Labour Court for any money due from an employer under any settlement, award or decision of arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal.
11. The representative for the applicant has not cited a single case to show that the C.B.A. Union is competent to approach this Court under section 51 of I. R. 0.1969, for the relief as claimed by it.
12. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the present application is not maintainable in its present form. If any individual worker thinks f that any money is due from the employer he can approach the Labour Court under section 51 of I.R.O.1969.
13. As a result of my above discussions I am satisfied that the present application is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. M. Y. H./880/Lb Application dismissed.