1970 PLP 841 (PLC)
PRESS EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN
| Citation | 1970 PLP 841 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and |
| Parties | PRESS EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 841 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 841 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 841 (PLC) (PRESS EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- As against this point, the learned Advocate for the first party had nothing to submit except to say that in the pre vious Act that is, the defunct East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, even the East Pakistan Government Press people could seek remedy in the Industrial Court. On hearing both the parties it appears that we have no necessity of labouring on this score of the jurisdiction of the defunct East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, as the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, is quite clear in the matter. The press workers of the East Pakistan Government Settlement Pros are persons employed in the administration of the State. They are government servants and as such, they are governed by different Government Rules. They cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court established under the I. R. O., 1969. As such, it appears that the case is not maintainable under the present Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). Heard both the parties presence of both the Members on a preliminary point of maintain ability of the case. The second party who is ‑the Government of East Pakistan represented by the Director of Land Records and Survey, submitted that the first party, the East Pakistan Government Settlement Press Employees is not covered by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to section 1 (3) which reads as follows "(3) It shall not apply to any person employed in the Police or any of the Defence Services‑of Pakistan and any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an ordnance factory maintained by the Central Government; ' or to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railways, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments." It is submitted that the said persons employed in the East Pakistan Government Settlement Press is under the admi nistration of the State and, therefore, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, would not be applicable .in this case. As such, the first party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. As against this point, the learned Advocate for the first party had nothing to submit except to say that in the pre vious Act that is, the defunct East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, even the East Pakistan Government Press people could seek remedy in the Industrial Court. On hearing both the parties it appears that we have no necessity of labouring on this score of the jurisdiction of the defunct East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, as the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, is quite clear in the matter. The press workers of the East Pakistan Government Settlement Pros are persons employed in the administration of the State. They are government servants and as such, they are governed by different Government Rules. They cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court established under the I. R. O., 1969. As such, it appears that the case is not maintainable under the present Ordinance. Hence the case is dismissed‑on contest on the ground of non-maintainability. The learned members on consultation agree with my above decision.