1993 PLP 182 (PLC)
PAKLAND CEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI through General Secretary Versus JOINT DIRECTOR LABOUR, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1993 PLP 182 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKLAND CEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI through General Secretary Versus JOINT DIRECTOR LABOUR, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 182 (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 1993 PLP 182 (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: 1993 PLP 182 (PLC) (PAKLAND CEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI through General Secretary Versus JOINT DIRECTOR LABOUR, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Representative for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 12th August, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 46‑A(3) & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Proceedings under S.46‑A(3), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Cross‑examination of witnesses in such proceeding ‑‑‑Suo motu exercise of revisional powers‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Labour Court under provisions of S. 46‑A(3), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, .was required to pass order either for the strike by the workers to be called off, or lock‑out to be lifted, within ten days‑‑‑Such exercise of power was not possible if parties were allowed to test witnesses by way of cross‑examination‑‑‑Such approach would be very gingerly and object of completing the enquiry within ten days simply could not be secured‑‑‑Right of a party proceeding under S.38(3‑a), Industrial Relations Ordinance by way of information only, there being no occasion in such proceedings to exercise powers of suo motu revision to revise or modify order passed under provisions of S.46‑A(3), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Lal Muhammad and 64 others v. Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi 1970 PLC 1 ref. Shafiq Qureshi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 12th August, 1992. This application, under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969, has arisen in the following circumstances:
2. On 6‑7‑1991 Mr. Jahangir Azar, the Joint Director, Labour (Conciliation) East Division, Karachi submitted a report under section 46‑A of the I.R.O., before the Labour Court with a prayer that the workers of the respondent No. 2 be directed to call off their illegal strike which was continuing partially since 2‑0‑1991 and completely from 10‑6‑1991.
3. The parties were served with notice and filed their Reply Statements.
4. After hearing the parties the learned Presiding Officer, for the reasons given by him, allowed the application holding that the strike was illegal and therefore it should be called off forthwith.
5. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant Union maintained that the Labour Director had failed to give notice to the workmen under section 42(2) of the I.R.O. It was further contended that even the application for cross‑examining the Joint Director was rejected by the Labour Court. It had also failed to consider the plea of the Union that it was a case of lock‑out on the part of the respondents/management.
6. There is no gainsaying the fact that the services of only some workers had been terminated and therefore there was no question of total cessation of work on the part of the respondent No. 2. `Lock‑out', as held in Lal Muhammad and 64 others v. Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi reported in 1970 PLC page 1, does not mean discharge or dismissal of a workman from service.
7. Admittedly there was no notice of strike. The fact also remains that there was no Industrial Dispute between the parties nor the applicants were the Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondent. Otherwise too the provisions of section 46‑A is to provide an expeditious disposal of a dispute under section 45 of the I.R.O.
8. Under the provision of section 46‑A(3) the Labour Court is required to pass the order either for the strike to be called off, as in this case, or lock‑out to be lifted, within ten days. This could not be possible if the parties were allowed to test witnesses by way of cross‑examination. This would be a very gingerly approach and the object of completing the enquiry within ten days simply could not be secured.
9. The right of a party proceeding under section 38(3‑a) is by way of information only, and I do not find any occasion to exercise powers of suo motu revision to revise or modify the impugned order.
10. The application, therefore, is dismissed. A.A./2089/Lb. S Application dismissed.