2010 PLP 439 (PLC)
HUSSAIN BUX MALLAH Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through its Group Executive HR & 4 others
| Citation | 2010 PLP 439 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Bashir Ahmed Memon, (Member) |
| Parties | HUSSAIN BUX MALLAH Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through its Group Executive HR & 4 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 439 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 439 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Bashir Ahmed Memon, (Member).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 439 (PLC) (HUSSAIN BUX MALLAH Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through its Group Executive HR & 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq A. Shaikh for Petitioner.
- Faisal Mahmood Ghani for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25(8)(g)
National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)
Unfair labour practice by the employers
Respondent/employers had asserted that prior to filing of petition by the petitioner/employee against alleged unfair labour practice by the employers, employee was dismissed from service vide dismissal order which was received by the employee
Copy of dismissal order produced by the employers had shown that same was received by the employee through courier service
Employee, at the time of filing of petition being not in the employment of the employers, relief sought by the employee on the ground that during election proceedings of the union, the Management had threatened, for victimization of the employee due to his involvement in trade union activities and election of the union having been held by the Industrial Relations Commission, there remained no cause of action to the employee
On that ground also the petition had become infructuous and was not maintainable. 1990 PLC 599 and 1984 PLC 1342 ref.
Judgment & Decree
BASHIR AHMED MEMON, (MEMBER).
The petitioner named above has brought this petition under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 and along with it has filed application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 against the respondents.
2. While admitting the petition notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents entered in appearance through their counsel and filed written reply with preliminary legal objections and counter affidavit.
3. The respondents have asserted that prior to filing of this petition the petitioner was dismissed from service vide his dismissal order dated 7-10-2009, which was received by the petitioner on 8-10-2009, therefore this petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
5. The present petition was filed before this Bench of Commission on 13-10-2009. According to respondents the services of the petitioner were already terminated/dismissed before filing of present petition i.e. on 7-10-2009. The respondents have produced the copy of dismissal order of the petitioner which shows that the same was received by the petitioner through courier service and registered post on 8-10-2009 and 9-10-2009 and also received by the petitioner. In this way it is crystal clear that at the time of filing of the present petition, the petitioner was not in the employment of the respondents Bank and his dismissal has already taken effect therefore the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted by this Bench of Commission in these proceedings because such powers for reinstatement could only be exercised in case of awarding punishment for unfair labour practice and not case of acquittal of the charges. Reliance is placed on 1990 PLC 599 and 1981 PLC 1342.
6. It will be worth to mention here that the present petition was filed by the petitioner before this Bench of Commission on the ground that, during the election proceedings of, the union, respondents management has threatened for victimization of the petitioner due to this involvement in trade union activities. Admittedly the elections of the union have been held by the Commission, therefore there remains no any cause of action to the petitioner, therefore on this ground also the petition has become infructuous and is not maintainable.
7. In view of above facts and circumstances the petition is not maintainable which accordingly stands dismissed. H.B.T./29/NIRC Petition dismissed.