1992 PLP 1106 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD YASEEN and others Versus ILYAS SETH, M.D., ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES and 3 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1106 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Abdul Aziz Memon, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASEEN and others Versus ILYAS SETH, M.D., ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1106 (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 1992 PLP 1106 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Abdul Aziz Memon, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1106 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD YASEEN and others Versus ILYAS SETH, M.D., ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S.15
Unfair labour practice could be committed by employer or trade union or persons acting on their behalf-- Complainants being employees of contractor, complaint could not be filed against establishment under S.15, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-- Contractor also cited as accused, having terminated services of employees due to termination of contract, and having paid wages in lieu of notice, he could not be deemed to have committed offence
Complaint was dismissed in circumstances. Mahmood Habibullah for the Complainants. S.M. Yaqoob for Accused-Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Complainants claim to be employees of accused Nos.l to
3. According to them accused No.4 is Head Jobber but he is called contractor. Workers of accused Nos.l to 3 including the complainants formed a trade union in the: name and style of Abdullah Industries Contractors Employees Union. It was registered under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the IRO). As soon as the accused received information about formation of the union under section 8-A of the IRO that allegedly put pressure on the workers including the complainants to dissociate from trade union activities. Since this demand was not accepted, the accuse terminated their services on 6-2-1990 and thereby committed offence punishable under section 15(1)(d) of the IRO, 1969. 3, Accused Nos.l to 3 have filed comments in which they have denied relationship of employer and employee between them and the complainant. Their case is that they were employees of Contractor Abdul Rehman accused No.
4. Since his contract was terminated with effect from 31-1-1990 he terminated services of his employees on payment of salary of one month in lieu of the notice. The comments are supported by a number of documents. Accused No.4 has adopted comments of the remaining accused.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
5. Mr. Mahmood Habibullah, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the accused cannot be heard at this stage. Even notice should have not been sent to them. Order of this Court calling for comments of the accused is not warranted by law. As such the comments cannot be considered.
6. This point was raised in the case of Attaur Rehman v. NIRC and others (1981 SCMR 255). The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected the contention and held that dismissal of complaint by the learned Chairman NIRC on the basis of comments of accused supported by documentary evidence was quite in accord with NIRC (P & F) Regulations, 1973.
7. In order to proceed against the accused it must be shown that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The burden was upon the complainants but they have not produced an iota of documentary evidence to prove that they are employees of accused Nos.1 to
3. The accused on the other hand, have produced a number of documents which show that the complainants at one time or other were employees of accused No.4 . who terminated their services whenever his contract was terminated.
8. The complainants have not produced certificate of registration of the union but papers produced by accused and not disputed by complainants unambiguously state that the union was formed by workers of Contractors of Abdullah Industries in the name and style of Contractors of Abdullah Industries Shama Workers Union.
9. The above-mentioned union had filed before this Bench a case being Case No.4A (02)/91-K (1991 PLC 502) in which they had claimed to be employees of the accused. This case was dismissed on the ground that such relationship did not exist between them.
10. The complainants had also filed grievance petitions against the accused being Applications No.27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50 and 51 of 1990. These petitions were also dismissed for want of relationship of Master and Servant between them by the Third Sindh Labour Court by an order dated 2-7-1991.
11. Unfair labour practice can be committed by an employer or union of employers or persons acting on their behalf. Since complainants are not employees of accused Nos.l to 3 complaint cannot be maintained against them under section 15 of the IRO. Since accused No.4 had terminated the services of complainants due to termination of his own contract, and had paid them wages in lieu of notice, he cannot be said to have committed the offence. In the circumstances I am of the view that there is no reasonable ground to proceed against the accused. The complaints are therefore dismissed. AA./183/N.I.R.C. Complaints dismissed.