1992 PLP 326 (PLC)
CORNPAK EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI Versus Messrs CORNPAK LIMITED
| Citation | 1992 PLP 326 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | CORNPAK EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI Versus Messrs CORNPAK LIMITED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 326 (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 1992 PLP 326 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Haider, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 326 (PLC) (CORNPAK EMPLOYEES UNION, KARACHI Versus Messrs CORNPAK LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant.
- Mahmood A. Ghani, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing- 11th December, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(xiii), (xxvi) & 32(1-A)
Raising of industrial dispute
Another company by name different to respondent-Company was set up in premises of respondent-Company
One wall had been erected to divide building in two parts, but it had a common door
Appellants who were Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.) of respondent-Company, apprehended that other Company so set up was sister concern of respondent-Company and that it was well-planned device to divert funds of respondent-Company to that sister concern
Collective Bargaining Agent in his application under S.32(1-A) of Ordinance, had alleged that the way in which two Companies were being run, was a clear pointer to the fad that it was a joint venture and conceived to deprive workers of respondent-Company by way of bonus and other benefits
Collective Bargaining Agent had contended that they being C.BA. of respondent-Company with rights given to them under S. 2(xxvi) of Ordinance, 1969 had every reason to regulate relations between workmen and employers and to impose restrictions on conduct of their trade or business-- Respondent-Company contended that evidence on record had sufficiently established that two concerns had distinct and separate identities of their own
Respondent-Company being public limited Company was registered under Factories Act as well as with Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Income-tax Department and other Agencies whereas other Company was separately registered as a private limited Company
Respondent-Company had seven Directors, whereas other Company had three
Apprehension shown by Collective Bargaining Agent with regard to diversion of funds of respondent-Company also proved to be a figment of imagination as they failed to prove the same
What Collective Bargaining Agent had embarked upon, was not an industrial dispute within meaning of S. 2(xiii) of Ordinance, 1969
Right given to Collective Bargaining Agent under S. 2(xxvi) of Ordinance, 1969, would not empower them to assume responsibilities in functions of management as law did not permit them to intermeddle in affairs of business management. BOAC, Karachi v. Airways Employees' Union (B.OA.C. Branch), Karachi 1961 PLC 234 and General Manager v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1978 Kar. 972 ref.
Judgment & Decree
"Demand Na 42.--The benefits of all the demands shall also be given to all the members who are working on the machinery of the Central Technologies (Pvt.) Limited which have been taken on contract. Demand No. 43.--Agreements/contracts executed with the Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., be reviewed in consultation with the C.B-A. Union. Besides any fresh arrangements/agreements and contract with Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., or any other company be made/executed with the consent of the C.BA. Union. Demand No. 44.--The terms and conditions of the services of the workers employed in Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., be brought into consonance with the terms and conditions of the services of the workmen employed in the respondents-company. Demand No. 45.--The amount received in lieu of services offered, man power and equipment by the. respondents-company to Central Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., and United Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., be determined and their dues recovered with the consent of the C.BA. Union."
3. The respondents in their written statement denied the contentions of the appellants and maintained that the two concerns had separate juristic entities and that there was only one Director who was common to them. Their witness, S.H.A. Rizvi, who is the Sub-Divisional and Administration Manager, substantiated this. The learned Labour Court agreeing with the submissions of the respondents and for the reasons given by it dismissed the application, resulting in this appeal.
4. The contention raised by Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellants was in the main what was detailed in the application. It was i submitted that the way in which the two Companies were being run was a clear pointer of the fact that it was a joint venture and. conceived to deprive the workers of the company by way of the bonus and other benefits. He also made a grievance to the effect that the respondents were blowing hot and cold; admitting that they had used the machinery of the sister concern and departing from that stand when it suited them. They admitted that the employees of the sister concern had been engaged by them and again there was a summersault.
5. It was further urged that there was the movement of men and material from one part of the premises to the other and the whole thing appeared to be shady. They as the C.BA. with the rights given to them under section 2(xxvi) of the I.R.O., 1969, had every reason to regulate the relations between the workmen and the employers and to impose restriction on the conduct of their trade or business.
6. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative for the respondents contended that the evidence brought on the record was sufficient to show that the two concerns had distinct and separate identities of their own. The respondents-company, which is a public limited company, is registered under the Factories Act also, as well as with the Chamber of Commerce and Industries, the Income-tax Department and other Agencies. The Central Technologies (Private) Limited is separately registered as a private limited company and the witness has also produced a certificate of incorporation. The record produced also showed that the respondents had seven Directors, whereas this Central Technologies. (Private) Limited had three and there is only one Director common to these concerns. The later company is also separately registered with the Chamber of Commerce and Industries and is separately assessed under the Income Tax Act. The certificates of incorporation-have also been brought on the record. The fact that there was one common Director and even if there were to be more would not improve the case of the appellants any way.
7. He also contended that there was no change in the stand adopted by the respondents. The machinery installed by Central Technologies was lying idle at one stage and because these were of sophisticated nature, the respondents-Company decided to take advantage till their own machinery arrived from abroad. Now that the shipment had arrived and they had installed their own machinery even that had stopped. It was further urged that the door between the two portions was only for the sake of convenience so that fragile ampules could easily be moved from one part to the other. But, once the appellant had taken objection about the same, the door had been permanently closed and the material is taken by covering some distance by the road.
8. He further urged that the appellants were the C.B.A. of the respondents and they were registered as such. That being the situation; they could not take up cudgels on behalf of the workers of the other concern whom they did not know as duly brought on the record. The workers of Messrs Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd., had shown no interest in the matter, nor they had appeared as witnesses on their behalf and therefore, it cannot be said that they were willing to support the claim raised by the appellants.
9. It was further contended by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani that the apprehension shown was in regard to the diversion of the funds, but, Ashraf Hussain, the General Secretary of the appellants who is the only witness on their behalf has no knowledge about the accounts maintained by the respondents and certainly no specific instance of any suspicious entries. It was, therefore, nothing but a figment of imagination. Any way the law did not permit them to intermeddle in the affairs of business. The rights given to the I Trade Union under section 2(xxvi) of the I.R.O., 1969; would not empower them to assume responsibilities--the functions of the management. What they had embarked upon was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(13) of the I.R.O., 1969. Reliance was sought on 2 cases namely, (1) B.OA.C. Karachi v. Airways Employees Union (B.OA.C. Branch), Karachi reported in 1961. PLC 234 and (2) Messrs Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi through its General Manager v. Government of Pakistan and others reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 972.
10. I am satisfied that the conclusions reached by the learned Labour Court are not open to any exception. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2007/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.