1977 PLP 411 (PLC)
ABDUR REHMAN Versus INSAAF SILK FACTORY
| Citation | 1977 PLP 411 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | 1st Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Malik Lehrasap Khan, Presiding officer |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN Versus INSAAF SILK FACTORY |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 411 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 411 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the 1st Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Malik Lehrasap Khan, Presiding officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 411 (PLC) (ABDUR REHMAN Versus INSAAF SILK FACTORY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. N: Qureshi for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
3. The respondent resisted the petition and raised a Preliminary objection that the petitioner being an individual workman was not entitled to seek any relief under section 34 of the I. R. O. and he could seek redress of the grievance if any under section 25-A of the I. R. O. before the Junior Labour Court.
4. Parties have been heard at a considerable length for the disposal of the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the respondent.
5. Section 34 of the I.R.O. provides that any Collective Bargaining Agent or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement. This means that an application under section 34 may be filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. The petitioner in this case is obviously not a Collective Bargaining Agent. It is therefore, to be seen as to whether he is an employer as envisaged in section 23 ibid. He has claim ed in para. 1 of the petition that he was drawing pay of more than Rs. 800 p. m. and was thus an employer. The expression "employer" has been defined in section 2 (viii) of the I. R. O. The relevant portion of section 2 (viii) reads; "(viii) employer in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes :‑ (a) an heir, successor or assign as the case may be of such person or body as aforesaid ; (b) any person responsible for the Management, supervision and control of the establishment; (c)
; (d)
; (e) in relation to an establishment the proprietor of such establishment and every Director, Manager, Secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the Management of the affairs thereof.
6. The petitioner who is a Mistri was allegedly employed as Technical, Supervisor drawing pay of more than Rs. 800 p. m. does not appear to be covered by any of the clauses of the aforesaid definition of the expression "employer." He is therefore, positively not an employer and has no locus standi to file an application under section 34 of the I. R. O.
7. In view of the above preliminary objection raised by the respondent is accepted and the petitioner's application is dismissed as being not legally competent. Petition dismissed.