1994 PLP 258 (PLC)
Messrs NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus Syed ARSHAD HUSSAIN and 337 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 258 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus Syed ARSHAD HUSSAIN and 337 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 258 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 258 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 258 (PLC) (Messrs NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI Versus Syed ARSHAD HUSSAIN and 337 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Humayun for Appellant.
- M.L. Shahani for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Settlement‑‑‑Implementation of‑‑‑On serving a charter of demands on employers, a settlement was arrived at between employers and employees with regard to payment of utility allowance (electricity, gas and water etc.) to employees, but employers failed to implement settlement‑‑‑Settlement arrived at between parties was in unqualified terms and was duly signed by officers fully competent to enter into it on behalf of employers‑‑‑Employers were bound under law to implement settlement competently arrived at between parties and could not be allowed to wriggle out of their commitments.
Judgment & Decree
6. The settlement was to be effective from the 1st of January, 1991 up to 31‑12‑1992. The grievance notice was served on 12‑12‑1991 and the petition was filed on 27‑2‑1992. As the Chairman had to be approached for the resolution of all the difficulties in the implementation of the settlement, a number of letters had been sent by the union to him.
7. There is hardly any question for s1elay. Otherwise too the non fulfillment of the terms of the settlement will be a continuing injury every month. Under the circumstances there is no force in regard to the bar of limitation.
8. One of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal was that the petitioners "through its letter dated 31‑7‑1991 had conceded and accepted implementation of the agreement dated 9‑4‑1991 accepting terms under clause No.4". The letter in question reads as follows:‑‑ "The Chairman, National Insurance Corporation, Karachi. Sub. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 9‑4‑1991. Dear Sir, With reference to our several meetings regarding implementation of our above cited agreement, it has revealed that Demand No.4 under the head "Utility Allowance" existing in the agreement is the main problem between the Ministry of Commerce and the Management and presently the Management is unable to implement the agreement in toto. In the circumstances it is desired that the terms of agreement excepting term under Demand No.4 of the agreement may be implemented forthwith for the present without prejudice to right of C.BA. or individual worker to resort to any legal action. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) (Sd.) (Syed Arshad Hussain) (Mujeeb Ahmad) President General Secretary A very look at the letter shows that there was no question of any waiver at all therein.
9. There was a further contention though raised feebly, that it could be case for seeking interpretation under section 50 of the I.R.O. and not under section 25‑A. I am afraid the simple straight words 'of her British Majestys' English, hardly provided any room for that, and if the appellant entertained any doubt on that score it was for them to present the application here.
10. The settlement was in unqualified terms and the Chairman was fully competent to enter into it. The signatories from the appellant's side apart from the Chairman were the Chief Manager, three Managers and two Deputy Managers. The appellants are bound under the law to implement the same, and if they have exceeded their limits or transgressed any directions or instructions, it is a matter between the Government and the appellants. They cannot be allowed to wriggle out of their commitments on this plea.
11. In my humble view the appeal is devoid of all merit. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2262/Lb.S. Appeal dismissed.