1972 PLP 144 (PLC)
EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus MESSRS PAKISTAN STANDARDS INSTITUTIONS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1972 PLP 144 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sind Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Hidayat Hussain, Chairman |
| Parties | EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus MESSRS PAKISTAN STANDARDS INSTITUTIONS, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 144 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 144 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sind Labour Court bench comprising: Hidayat Hussain, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 144 (PLC) (EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus MESSRS PAKISTAN STANDARDS INSTITUTIONS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Naseer Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 34 and 47‑Conciliation proceedings pending before Conciliator‑Condi tions of service not to be changed‑Application of Trade Union under S. 34 pending before Court‑Injunction granted restraining employer from terminating services of workmen without Court's permission‑Employer, however, held, could hold enquiry, Wasi Ahmad for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Wasi Ahmad for Applicant. Abdul Naseer Khan for Respondents. Office‑bearers of the applicant‑Union have through this application sought ad‑interim injunction restraining the respon dents from terminating their services without the permission of this Court on the ground that the conciliation proceedings are pending before the conciliator. This application is a part of main Application No. 406/70 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 through which the applicant‑Union has prayed for adjudication of their dispute with the respondents. On receipt of this miscellaneous application notice was sent to the respondents who have appeared through Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan. Mr. Wasi Ahmad appears for the applicants of Mr. Wasi Ahmad are as follows: ‑ (a) The conciliation proceedings are pending before the con ciliator and, therefore, in terms of section 47 the respondents are under obligation to take prior permission of this Court for altering the condition of service of the applicant in any manner. (b) Application under section 34 amounts to proceedings before this Court and even in that view of matter the above position holds good. Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan answers as follows: ‑ (a) The application under section 34 of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance; 1969 is not maintainable because under the amended section 34 of the I. R. O. a party cannot come to the Court for adjudication of industrial dispute. (b) In terms of section 41 of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have been concluded on the date on which the period of the notice of strike or lock‑out expired. It is correct that in the memo. of Application No. 406/70 the applicants have used the word adjudication but at this stage it cannot be said that this application cannot be maintained in terms of section 34 of the Ordinance. The contention of Mr. Wasi Ahmad that the pendency of main Application No. 406/70 in this Court amounts to pandency of proceedings appears to have weight. I will, therefore, confirm the temporary injunc tion issued by my learned Predecessor dated 21st November 1970. It is clarified that the respondents are not restrained from conducting enquiry etc. It is only if they choose to alter the service condition or to do acts listed in section 47 of I. R. 0.6 that they shall require prior permission of the Court.