1977 PLP 642 (PLC)
MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES Versus WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1977 PLP 642 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court N. W. F. P. |
| Bench Members | Presiding Officer |
| Parties | MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES Versus WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 642 (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 1977 PLP 642 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court N. W. F. P. bench comprising: Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 642 (PLC) (MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES Versus WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 34 read with Ss. 39 & 40‑Settlement arrived at between Management and previous C. B. A.--‑Held, binding on new (successor) C. B. A. as agent of workmen‑Demands involving financial implication cannot be raised during operation of such settlement. Date of Institution : 26th January 1976.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Respondent No. 1 attained the status of C. B. A. on 18th October 1976. (2) Respondent No. 2 was the previous C. B. A. (3) Settlement, dated 15thJuly, 1976 copy Exh. P. W. 1/3 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for a period of two years. (4) A fresh Charter of Demands, dated 17thNovember, 1976 was served by respondent No. 1 upon the petitioner which has occasioned the present case. The question to be decided is that whether during the currency of the settlement, dated 15th July, 1976 between the petitioner and the previous C, B. A. can the new C. B. A. raise fresh financial demands or not. A Collective Bargaining Agent has been defined in sub‑section (v) of section 2, I. R. O., 1969 as under :‑ "Collective Bargaining Agent in relation to an establishment or industry means the Trade Union of workmen which under section 22 is the agent of workmen in the establishment or as the case may be, industry, in the matter of Collective Bargaining. Under Section 22, subsection 12 (b) it is entitled to represent all or any of the workmen in any proceedings. It is thus clear that a C. B. A. is the Agent, the spokesman and the representative of the workers in the establishment. Under the provisions of section 39 (d) of the I. R. O., a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings shall be binding on all the workmen who are employed in the establishment when a Collective Bargaining Agent is one of the parties to the dispute. In the instant case respondent No. 2 was a party to the dispute and the settlement, dated 15th July 1976 was arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and hence it is binding on all the workmen of the establishment. As seen above a C. B. A. is the agent of the workmen in the matter of Collective Bargaining and if the principal is bound by the terms of the settlement it cannot be said that the settlement is not binding upon the Agent. Thus a settlement is not binding upon respondent No. 1 because it is the successor of respondent No. 2 but because respondent No. 1 is the agent of the workmen upon whom the settlement is binding and so it is also binding on respondent No.
1. Under section 40 (2) of the I. R. O., a settlement is binding for such a period as is agreed upon by the parties. It is thus clear that during the operation of the settlement, dated 15thJuly 1976 respondent No. 1 i.e., the representative of the workers cannot raise any demand involving financial implication directly or indirectly. The petition is accepted.