1977 PLP 717 (PLC)
WRKERS' UNION Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, RAWALPINDI
| Citation | 1977 PLP 717 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Had Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan. Presiding Officer |
| Parties | WRKERS' UNION Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, RAWALPINDI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 717 (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 1977 PLP 717 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Had Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan. Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 717 (PLC) (WRKERS' UNION Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, RAWALPINDI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioner.
- Mahboob Pervez for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
S. 34‑Agreement‑Gentleman's agreement‑Cannot be enforced under S. 34. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioner. Mahboob Pervez for Respondent. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 19th May, 74, the then Punjab Transport Minister called a meeting of the high‑ups of the Depart ment and the Unions of the P. R. T. B. whether they were C. B. A. or not. Its minutes were reduced into writing, Parties agreed to withdraw all cases against one another and to further do their duty honestly. It was agreed between the parties that T. T. 40 would not be issued to a defaulter workman without taking into confidence the respective Union, but these minutes were not signed by the parties. Management never took into confidence the respective Union before issuing T. T. 409 workmen of the petitioner‑Union were dismissed from service. Their petitions under section 25‑A of I. R. O. and appeals were dismissed. Now Union has come under section 34 of I. R. O. for the enforcement of that Agreement. 2. Notice was issued to the respondent. It has filed its written reply. The petitioner has examined General Secretary of the Union and closed its evidence, whereas Management did not produce any evidence despite oppor tunity given to it. Arguments of the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the definition of the term "Col lective Agreement" and has tried to make me believe that this Collective Agreement has become part of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by virtue of sections 3 and 4 of the said Ordinance, so it has got the force of law and is therefore, enforceable under section 34 of I. R. O. 3. I am afraid I cannot agree with this proposition. No corresponding amendment has been made in the Standing Order No. 15 of the said Ordi nance. Employer has every right under that Standing Order to charge its employee for a misconduct committed by him. At the most it can be sail to be a gentleman's agreement and Management has not honoured its commitment, but it cannot be enforced under section 34 of I. R. O. 4. In that view of the matter, I find, that this petition has no merit it is therefore dismissed.