1996 PLP 20 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AWAN Versus NADIR ALI and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 20 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AWAN Versus NADIR ALI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 20 (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 1996 PLP 20 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 20 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AWAN Versus NADIR ALI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sultan Mahmood for Petitioner.
- M.A.K. Azmati for Respondent.
- M. Shakeel for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing. 25th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15, 16 & 22-A(8)(g)
Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission
Employee who claimed to be elected/nominated General Secretary of Staff Union in employer establishment, had prayed in his petition filed under S. 22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that respondent, who claimed to be President of Union, should be directed to refrain from posing to be elected/nominated President of Union and Management should also be directed not to accept him as elected/nominated President
Prayer of petitioner did not fall under any of the provisions of Ss. 15 & 16 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 dealing with unfair labour practice as employee had not disclosed any act of unfair labour practice which was an essential element to give rise to adjudicating powers of Commission.
Judgment & Decree
M. Shakeel for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing. 25th April, 1995. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is the elected/nominated General Secretary of the Pakistan Telecommunication Staff Union which is enjoying the status of C.BA. for W.T.R. Region, Quetta. It was contended that respondent is illegally claiming to be the President of the said union and the Management i.e. respondent No.2 is also unlawfully treating him as the President of the said union. Under such circumstances this Commission issued interim injunction order in favour of the petitioner.
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondent No. 1 by way of filing of written statement wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents filed on record with their help. Before considering the merits of the case I feel it my duty to firstly assess the jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate upon. This Commission assumes jurisdiction under the provisions of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O.,1969 which provides the following words:‑‑ "To deal with cases of unfair labour practice specified in sections 15 and 16 on the part of employees, workmen trade unions or either of them or persons acting on behalf of them, whether committed individually or collectively in the manner laid down under section 25‑A or section 34 or in such other way as may be prescribed, and to take in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under section 22‑F measures calculated to prevent an employer or workman from committing an unfair labour practice."
4. After' going through this provision, it is crystal clear that unfair labour practice, within the meaning of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969, is a necessary element, which can give rise to the adjudicating powers of this Commission, is purely a dispute between the alleged office‑bearers of the union and there is not a single word about the commission of unfair labour practice in the petition. It will be convenient to reproduce the prayer made in the petition:‑‑ "It is, therefore, prayed that in consideration of above this Hon'ble Court may graciously by pleased to direct respondent No. 1 to refrain himself as posing and styling himself as elected/nominated President of the said Union and also respondent No. 2 be directed to accept the respondent No. 1 as elected/nominated President of the said union, in the interest of justice fair play and equity."
5. It is very difficult to bring this prayer under any of the provision of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969, as the petition do not disclose any act of unfair labour practice. As such, I feel no difficulty to reach to the conclusion that the petition in hand is not maintainable before this Commission. The same is dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./242/NIRC ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.???????????????????