PLC 2018

2018 PLP 186 (PLC)

The BOARD OF DIRECTORS through Chairman, Secretary Industry and another Versus LASBELLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through President

Jurisdiction / Court
Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal
Decided Date
Labour Appeal No.23 of 2017, decided on 7th March, 2018.
Honorable Judges
Zahoor Ahmed Mengal, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2018 PLP 186 (PLC)
Forum / Court Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal
Bench Members Zahoor Ahmed Mengal, Member
Parties The BOARD OF DIRECTORS through Chairman, Secretary Industry and another Versus LASBELLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through President
Primary Law Balochistan Industrial Relations Ordinance (XIII of 2010)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 186 (PLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Balochistan Industrial Relations Ordinance (XIII of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 186 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Zahoor Ahmed Mengal, Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 186 (PLC) (The BOARD OF DIRECTORS through Chairman, Secretary Industry and another Versus LASBELLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through President). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Balochistan Industrial Relations Ordinance (XIII of 2010)

Representation

  • Aslam Jamali, Additional Advocate General for Appellant.
  • Syed Zareef Shah for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 41(6)

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.87

Grievance petition

Execution of judgment passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission through Labour Court

Scope

Execution petition was moved before National Industrial Relations Commission but same was returned due to want of jurisdiction

Applicant filed another execution petition before Labour Court for execution of order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission which was accepted

Contention of employer was that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to implement the order passed by the other forum

Validity

Matter was initially entertained by the National Industrial Relations Commission and final judgment was passed by the said forum

Section 87 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 contained the National Industrial Relations Commission to deal with the Federal and trans-provincial matters

Matter being provincial subject, National Industrial Relations Commission lost its jurisdiction

Labour Court had passed the impugned order in accordance with law

No illegality had been committed by the Court below

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. 2015 PLC 1 rel.

Judgment & Decree

ZAHOOR AHMED MENGAL, MEMBER.

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21-08-2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, III Labour Court at Hub wherein the application filed by respondents under section 41(6) of Balochistan Industrial Act, 2010, was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a grievance petition before NIRC Balochistan chapter, which was allowed on 01-01-2009 and appeal filed by the concern party was dismissed by the full bench of NIRC on 17-08-2010, while on 31-03-2015 the respondent filed an execution application before the NIRC and the same was returned back to the applicant due to want of Jurisdiction, therefore, the respondent/applicant preferred another application before the Trial Court for execution of order dated 01-01-2009 passed by the NIRC which was allowed by the Trial Court through the judgment impugned herein.

3. Counsel of the appellant mainly stressed on the point that on one hand the applicant/respondent not falls within the definition of workman, on the other hand the Trial Court wrongly assume jurisdiction as the final order was passed by the NIRC, therefore, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to implement the order passed by the other forum.

4. Counsel of the respondent repudiated the arguments put forward by the counsel for the appellant and states that as the NIRC lost its jurisdiction, therefore, there is no other way left for the respondent/applicant except to approach Labour Court. Now as the respondent/applicant is a workman and the appellant is a provincial establishment, therefore, the only forum which has jurisdiction is Labour Court.

5. I have heard the arguments put forward by the both parties. When the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant was asked to satisfy the Court or refer any law or reference on the point that Labour Court/this Tribunal have Powers to execute the order passed by NIRC, the counsel for the respondents referred the judgment of Hon'ble Sindh High Court reported in 2015 PLC 01, the relevant portion is as under: "

Ss. 53, 87 & Preamble

Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013), S.45

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199

Constitutional petition--Legal forum available to the employees/ labourers/workers employed in a trans-provincial or intra-provincial establishment/company/corporation/institution

National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) or Labour Courts-- Two laws existed side by side, one at Federal level i.e. Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the other at provincial level i.e. Sindh Industrial Relations, 2013 both dealing with similar subjects

In order to avoid the confusion of overlapping of jurisdictions as the where the employers or workmen of trans-provincial establishments could seek legal remedy, S.87 has been incorporated in Industrial Relations Act, 2012 which provided that its provisions shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force

Effect of such non obstante clause contained in S.87 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was only to the extent that for trans-provincial establishments, the forum to seek legal remedy in matters covered by Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was only and only the one provided thereunder i.e. National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and not the Labour Courts established under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 that was applicable

High Court directed that all cases pending adjudication in Labour Court pertaining to trans-provincial industrial and commercial establishments shall stand transferred to the NIRC of appropriate jurisdiction; that likewise, cases, if any, pending adjudication in NIRC pertaining to intra-provincial industrial and commercial establishments shall stand transferred to the Labour courts of appropriate jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly."

6. The matter initially was entertained by NIRC and final judgment which attained finality was passed by NIRC, but meanwhile the law changed and Section 87 was inserted in IRA, 2012, wherein the NIRC confined to deal with the Federal and trans-provincial matters, therefore, the NIRC lost its jurisdiction and the matter as being provincial subject in the light of the above judgment automatically transferred to Labour Court.

7. In the light of above discussion and judgment referred in Para supra, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment in accordance with law and proper jurisdiction, hence committed no illegality, there is no legal reason available to interfere or reverse the same, therefore, the same is upheld and appeal in hand is hereby dismissed as having no merits.

8. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

9. The copy of judgment along with original record of Trial Court be sent to Trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record,

10. Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 7th March, 2018. ZC/6/Blt Appeal dismissed.