Jurisdiction of Labour Court

2018 PLC 80 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 43 & 48(5)Restoration of CBA certificateJurisdiction of Labour Court

No provision existed in Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 conferring jurisdiction upon a Labour Court to decide matters pertaining to grant, cancellation or restoration of CBA certificate

Such matters were dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Grievance petition filed by the Trade Union before Labour Court was dismissed being not maintainable

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

2016 PLC 34 PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17(1-B) & 17(1-C)Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), Ss.33 & 46(3)Termination of serviceGrievance petition, competency ofJurisdiction of Labour Court

Appellants, remained employed in WAPDA as skilled coolies on daily-wage basis for about five years, when their services were terminated

Appellants filed joint grievance petition to challenge termination of their services, but Labour Court, returned the petition for its presentation before the proper forum having jurisdiction; on the ground that Labour Court had no jurisdiction in view of provisions of Ss.17(1-B) & 17(1-C) of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 and that Federal Service Tribunal, alone had jurisdiction where the services of WAPDA employees were terminated

In view of provisions of Ss.17(1-B) & 17(1-C) of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the grievance of WAPDA employee.

2015 PLC 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 44 (4) (c) (f), 33 (8) & 47Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012). S.75Constitution of Pakistan: Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityImplementation of order for reinstatement of an employee passed by the Labour CourtJurisdiction of Labour CourtScope

Labour Court directed the employer to issue reinstatement order of the employee in the light of its judgment with further direction to pay outstanding wages

Validity

Jurisdiction of a forum should be determined according to status of the employee

If employer had its establishment in more than one Provinces then jurisdiction of Labour Court was barred rather National Industrial Relations Commission had the exclusive jurisdiction

Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was in field at the time of passing of impugned order

Labour Court had become functus officio to pass any order on the petition filed by the employee

Proceedings before Labour Court were coram non judice after coming into field the Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Order passed by Labour Court was not authentic as aggrieved person could challenge the same before other forum in the shape of review or revision

High Court being custodian of Fundamental Rights of the citizens had the power to determine the jurisdiction of a forum to proceed with any matter

Constitutional petition was not maintainable when aggrieved person had alternate remedy but when order impugned was patently illegal or coram non-judice then same could not be allowed to let go simply for the reason that person challenging the same had alternate remedy

Impugned order did not fall within the category of orders which were revisable under S.47 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

Constitutional petition was maintainable in circumstances

Employee was entitled for implementation of orders passed in his favour but when employer had trans-provincial status then jurisdiction of Labour Court in any matter was barred

Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order on the petition filed by the employee

Impugned order was set aside and petition filed by the employee was directed to be transferred to National Industrial Relations Commission for its adjudication within specified period

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

2013 PLC 345 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 46 & 50(3)Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(b)(i)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionOption for Voluntary Separation SchemeWithholding of payment of commutation and monthly allowanceGrievance petitionJurisdiction of Labour Court

Scope-Employer company launched a Voluntary Separation Scheme, and employees who availed that option/offer, were paid some amount on. account of severance pay etc., but the payment of commutation and monthly allowance were withheld by the employer company

Grievance petition filed by the employees was accepted by the Labour Court which was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal

Counsel for the employer raised objection' that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition as the employees were not workmen and the employer company was not Commercial Establishment

Employer company, had come within the definition of industry as well as Commercial Establishrnent as per definition under S.2(b)(i) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as it had hired the services of their employees to do skilled, unskilled, manual as well as clerical work

Since in the present case, the employees had been deprived of the emoluments and pensions etc., they had rightly knocked the doors of Labour Court being workmen

Grievance petitions involved both factual and legal controversies, Labour Court, after conducting proper trial and giving full opportunities to both the parties to produce pro and contra evidence, decided the matter on its own merits both on facts and law

Employees had suffered a lot, both financially and physically, for the acts of the others

Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, in circumstance, had rightly exercised the authority vested in them by legal provisions of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2009 PLC 236 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 46Individual grievanceJurisdiction of Labour Court

So far as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to redress the individual grievance of a worker under S.46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was concerned, the said jurisdiction was altogether different

Labour Court had the power to redress the individual grievance of a worker even if unfair labour practice was not established, if the worker had been deprived from any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force

Commission of unfair labour practice was not a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

2000 PLC 235 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 25-AJurisdiction of Labour CourtScope

Labour Court in the exercise of its powers under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has full and complete powers to go into the question of fact and to arrive at its own conclusion regardless of there being any defect in the procedure in the domestic proceedings.

1998 PLC 359 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 35(5) & 36Jurisdiction of Labour Court

Labour Court being Court of special jurisdiction, general principles observed by Civil Courts, were not to be freely exercised by Labour Court.

1998 PLC 240 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25-A & 36(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX. Rr. 1 & 2Grant of interim injunctionJurisdiction of Labour Court

Labour Court under S. 36(2), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not invested with all powers of Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code, but was invested with only procedural powers required for adjudication and determination of industrial dispute

Power of granting interim injunction having not been mentioned anywhere in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Labour Court had no authority to pass order in the nature of interim injunction under OXXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code restraining employer from terminating services of employee.

1998 PLC 28 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25-A & 36(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, R.1Interim relief, grant ofJurisdiction of Labour Court

Employee who was issued show-cause notice and charge-sheet alongwith order of suspension had filed grievance petition under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 seeking interim relief to quash enquiry proceedings started against him

Powers enjoyed by Labour Court under S.36(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 according to which Labour Court was empowered (i) to enforce attendance of witnesses; (ii) compel production of document, and (iii) issue commission, were very much limited

Labour Court had no authority to pass order in nature of interim injunction under O.XXXIX, R.1, Civil Procedure Code

Grievance petition filed by employee seeking interim relief, thus, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court holding that it had no jurisdiction to grant that relief.