1970 PLC 793 (PLP)
NAZIR AHMED Versus M. A. AWAL
| Citation | 1970 PLC 793 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman arid K. R. Malik, |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED Versus M. A. AWAL |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLC 793 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLC 793 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman arid K. R. Malik,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLC 793 (PLP) (NAZIR AHMED Versus M. A. AWAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the accused that the Failure Certificate was issued by the con ciliator on 27‑10‑69. The complainant was dismissed on 26‑12‑69, and the case under reference being Labour Dispute Case No. 99 of 1969 on the strength of which this present Complaint Case No. 3 of 1970 has been made was filed on 9‑1‑70, by the President, Adamjee Group of Companies (Head 01$ce) Office Employees' Union. This case was later withdrawn by an application of the President of the said Union on 11‑3‑70. So the said Labour Dispute Case No. 99 of 1969 should be treated as not filed. So in the eye of law no case existed before this Court. In view of this it appears that no complaint lies. It further appears that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 came into operation on 13‑11‑69. But tile ‑Labour Dispute Case ‑No. 99 'of 1969 was filed under section 6 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 on obtaining a Failure Certificate from the conciliation officer. In fact, there also the Labour Dis pute Case of 99 of, 1969 did not lie as that Act was repealed and the party should have come under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Further it is found that section 6 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 is not inconsistent with any relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and it has not been saved under section 67(2) of the Ordinance. There also that Labour Dispute Case No. 99 of 1969 did not lie. Possibly on understanding the position that case was withdrawn by .the President of the Union.
Headnotes / Summary
East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act (VI of 1965), S. 6 and v. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
S. 67(2)‑Failure M A. A Certificate obtained before promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ‑ Industrial dispute on basis‑ of such Failure Certificate filed after promulgation of Industrial Relations Chairman Ordinance, under S. 6 of East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 Section 6, East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 being neither consistent with any relevant provision of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 nor saved under. S 67(2), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, industrial dispute, in circumstances, held, did not lie.
Judgment & Decree
Complaint Case No. 3 of 1970, decided on 4th April 1970. East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act (VI of 1965), S. 6 and v. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
S. 67(2)‑Failure M A. A Certificate obtained before promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ‑ Industrial dispute on basis‑ of such Failure Certificate filed after promulgation of Industrial Relations Chairman Ordinance, under S. 6 of East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 Section 6, East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 being neither consistent with any relevant provision of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 nor saved under. S 67(2), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, industrial dispute, in circumstances, held, did not lie. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).
Member Mr. K. A. Malik is present. The other member is absent. Both parties are present. Heard both the parties. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the accused that the Failure Certificate was issued by the con ciliator on 27‑10‑
69. The complainant was dismissed on 26‑12‑69, and the case under reference being Labour Dispute Case No. 99 of 1969 on the strength of which this present Complaint Case No. 3 of 1970 has been made was filed on 9‑1‑70, by the President, Adamjee Group of Companies (Head 01$ce) Office Employees' Union. This case was later withdrawn by an application of the President of the said Union on 11‑3‑
70. So the said Labour Dispute Case No. 99 of 1969 should be treated as not filed. So in the eye of law no case existed before this Court. In view of this it appears that no complaint lies. It further appears that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 came into operation on 13‑11‑
69. But tile ‑Labour Dispute Case ‑No. 99 'of 1969 was filed under section 6 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 on obtaining a Failure Certificate from the conciliation officer. In fact, there also the Labour Dis pute Case of 99 of, 1969 did not lie as that Act was repealed and the party should have come under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Further it is found that section 6 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 is not inconsistent with any relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and it has not been saved under section 67(2) of the Ordinance. There also that Labour Dispute Case No. 99 of 1969 did not lie. Possibly on understanding the position that case was withdrawn by .the President of the Union. In view of all these technicalities it appears that no complaint lies in the present case and accordingly the complaint is dismissed under section 200, Cr. P. C. Member Mr. K. A. Malik who is present in Court agrees with my above decision.