1976 PLP 664 (PLC)
M. ASLAM MALIK Versus ALI AHMED
| Citation | 1976 PLP 664 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Mamoon A. Kazi, Bashir Ahmad Malik and Farhat Ali Khan, Members |
| Parties | M. ASLAM MALIK Versus ALI AHMED |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 664 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 664 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Mamoon A. Kazi, Bashir Ahmad Malik and Farhat Ali Khan, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 664 (PLC) (M. ASLAM MALIK Versus ALI AHMED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Transfer of office-bearer of Collective Bargaining Agent (Union)- Victimisation due to Union activities alleged-Transfer order, in circumstances, suspended anti status quo ordered pending final decision of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
ALI AHMED Case No. 12(28) of 1975, decided on 16th June 1975. -- Transfer of office-bearer of Collective Bargaining Agent (Union)- Victimisation due to Union activities alleged-Transfer order, in circumstances, suspended anti status quo ordered pending final decision of appeal. Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Appellant. Challenges the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity was given to the appellant to prove the allegations in the complaint which had prima facie disclosed the commission of offence of unfair labour practice by the respondent. Mr. Waraich has contended that it was clearly mentioned in the complaint that respondent had issued a transfer policy wherein it was clearly mentioned that office-bearers of the Collective Bargaining Agent of the level of Joint Secretary and above were not to be transferred from one location to another place of duty copy of which was filed alongwith the complaint as Each. P/3. The learned counsel has further emphasised that the respondents have been strictly adhering to this policy which if given a chance the complainant would have been able to prove Mr. Sadiq Mohammad Waraich has further contended that allegations in the complaint that the transfer of the appellant from Rawalpindi to Karachi was purely by way of victimization and due to his Union activities, he being the Vice-President of the rival Union, could also have been proved by the complainant if proper opportunity has been afforded to him. The learned counsel has therefore contended that impugned order is bad in law. Admit Notice to the respondent for hearing on 7th July 1975. As regards the stay the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if transfer of the appellant is not stayed, his entire case will become infructuous. The learned counsel has further contended that the learned Chairman could only decide the question of stay after providing an opportunity to appellant to file Rejoinder in reply to objections filed by one respondents. Under the circumstances, we order status quo, in the case until the final decision of this appeal.