1999 PLP 396 (PLC)
through General Manager, Admn. & Logistics Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.IV, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1999 PLP 396 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman |
| Parties | through General Manager, Admn. & Logistics Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.IV, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 396 (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 1999 PLP 396 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 396 (PLC) (through General Manager, Admn. & Logistics Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.IV, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Jeelani for Respondent No.2.
- Advocate for the respondent.
- Advocate for Informant."
- Dated: 17‑3‑1999. Advocate for respondent Union.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 34 & 38(3-a)
Application for enforcement of rights guaranteed-- Pending application of workers trade union against employer for enforcement of rights guaranteed, statement was made in writing by workers trade union to the effect that if conciliator was allowed to hold conciliation proceedings, trade union would not indulge into any acts of unfair labour practice and would not observe strike up to conclusion of conciliation proceedings
With consent of parties, application filed under S. 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was disposed of accordingly. Muhammad Humayun for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
(ii) The respondent union shall pursue the subsequent charter of demands submitted vide letter dated 8‑9‑1998. (iii) If the conciliator is allowed to hold conciliation proceedings, the union shall not indulge into any acts of unfair labour practice strike, including going on strike until the conciliation proceedings are concluded. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 29‑9‑1998 may please be modified by consent of parties. Karachi: Dated 17‑3‑1999. (Sd.) Advocate for the respondent. I have no objection. (Sd.) Advocate for Informant." It has also been prayed in the statement that the interim order dated 29‑9‑1998 be modified by consent of the parties.
5. The parties' counsel have also filed a further statement, which is signed by both counsel jointly. The said statement is reproduced as under: "Further statement at the Bar It is further submitted that in case conciliation proceedings, God forbid, fail, the parties shall peruse their remedies according to law. Karachi: (Sd.) Dated: 17‑3‑1999. Advocate for respondent Union. (Sd.) Advocate for Informant."
6. In view of the statement at the bar made by Mr. Jeelani, later-on put I into writing by him with endorsement of no objection by Mr. Humayun and the further statement, jointly signed by both of them, the impugned order dated 29‑9‑1999 stands modified and the revision application is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 1999
7. The interim order of stay, passed on 5‑10‑1998 also stands vacated and the application, having become infructuous, is dismissed accordingly, as the main revision application has already been disposed of, on the joint statement, made by the parties. Announced In open Court, this the 17th day of March, 1999. H.B.Td297/K/Lab. (Trib.) Order accordingly.