Industrial Dispute

Petitioner / Gujranwala Electric Supply Company was aggrieved of acceptance of grievance notice of respondents / employees whose services were terminated

Plea raised by petitioner / Company was that the respondents / employees did not fulfil eligibility criteria

Validity

Eligibility criteria for appointment against a particular post was to be determined on the basis of public advertisement

Respondents / employees were possessing higher qualification than Matriculation and they were ineligible to apply against the posts of Assistant Linemen

Respondents / employees did not fulfill eligibility criteria, therefore, appointment orders issued in their favour could not be allowed to remain in field

High Court set aside the orders passed by fora below, which had misdirected themselves while dealing with the matter, resultantly their grievance petitions were dismissed

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner / Gujranwala Electric Supply Company was aggrieved of acceptance of grievance notice of respondents / employees whose services were terminated

Plea raised by petitioner / Company was that it was not an industry

Validity

Any entity which is involved in electrical undertakings falls within the definition of an industry

Main role of petitioner / Company is distribution, service and sale of electric power; the same falls within the definition of an industry and provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to its employees

According to Art. 175 of the Constitution, Government has jurisdiction to establish Courts for various subjects

Labour Courts have been established under the provisions of Labour Laws enacted by the relevant government, the same cannot be denuded of their powers to deal with a matter covered under the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below as their findings were unexceptionable

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner / establishment assailed orders passed by the forums below declaring that provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable

Validity

Petitioner / establishment qualified as an 'establishment' in terms of S. 2(x) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which included a company that had employed a workman for carrying on business, which nature of business was distinguishable from the industry

Respondent / employee was dismissed whose individual grievance came within the ambit of an industrial dispute in terms of S.2(xvi) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012

This was a dispute between an employer and workman and was connected with employment or otherwise concerning the terms and conditions of employment

Respondent / employee also came within the definition of workman under S.2 (xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, as he was not employed to conduct managerial or administrative assignment

Even if petitioner / establishment was not qualified as a 'commercial establishment' for the purpose of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, but it came within the ambit of an establishment under Industrial Relations Act, 2012 which might not be a ground for dismissing claim of respondent / employee in the wake of S. 87 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which had extended an overriding effect to the Act, 2012

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two for a below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner / employer company was aggrieved of order passed by Member National Industrial Relation Commission as Authorized Officer, who had stopped referendum proceedings for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA)

Validity

Appeal was provided under S. 58 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to Full Bench of the Commission only against an order, decision etc. passed by a Member of the Commission

Remedy of appeal against award or decision or order passed by any Bench of the Commission was available before the Commission under S. 58 (1) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Appeal was to be disposed of in terms of S.58 (2) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Order passed by Member NIRC as Authorized Officer was in fact an order against which statutory remedy of appeal was provided in terms of S. 58 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Where statute under which order was assailed itself had provided remedy of appeal, Court of constitutional causes ought to be reluctant to by-pass special statute and should not resort to exercise judicial review

High Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by NIRC

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where a person lacked basic qualification to be appointed, any time spent in rendering the service would not cure the defect in his appointment, especially when there were other contestants available for the said post who could not be appointed solely for the reason that the petitioner was selected for the appointment

Lack of basic qualification or failure to meet the eligibility criteria was a defect which could not be cured by attaining said qualification or higher qualification subsequently, unless the same was permitted by the statute, rules, regulations, policy decision or the advertisement through which applications for appointment were invited.

Where basic appointment order is issued without lawful authority then superstructure built thereupon would fall on the ground automatically.

Advertisement in newspaper for appointment of the post to the post of driver was issued, in which required qualification for the post of driver was middle pass and holder of LTV driving licence with 2 years experience on the closing date

Although, the petitioner applied for the said post but he did not possess any LTV driving licence, which was subsequently issued to him and was appointed

During subsistence of the contract, a contestant challenged the appointment of petitioner by filing a complaint before the Ombudsman by claiming that the petitioner on the date of appointment lacked the requisite qualification, who referred the matter to the department and consequently due to lack of driving experience his services were terminated

Recording of any evidence for holding regular enquiry did not exist in the matter as there was no factual controversy requiring resolution and determination in view of the fact that the petitioner had neither raised any triable issue nor claimed to have possessed LTV driving licence prior to the closing date of the filing of application

Constitutional petition, being devoid of force, was dismissed.

Temporary appointment would always be subject to verification of character and antecedents.

Petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk under Employees Son's Quota but his appointment was withheld on the ground of production of fake medical certificate

Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal decided the issue against the petitioner

Contention of petitioner was that he never made any statement before the respondent/company admitting production of fake medical certificate whereas the same was used against him as evidence before the Labour Court

Held; petitioner had not raised any objection when it was tendered in evidence by the company

Petitioner was declared unfit for the appointment by the Medical Superintendent and later on he had managed to procure medical certificate and presented it for securing his appointment which subsequently was proved as fake upon verification by the company

Regular inquiry against the petitioner was not necessary as he himself admitted his guilt through a statement which was proved during evidence before the fora below

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Employer has the prerogative to get verified any documents/certificates of a person employed at any stage of service for satisfaction even though it was not mentioned in the letter of appointment.

Contention of the petitioner/bank was that the status of employees/respondents did not fall in the definition of "worker" or "workman"

Validity

Employees were, undisputedly, working as Qasid and Typist with the petitioner/bank, thus they were, admittedly, not engaged for managerial or administrative supervisory work and had no authority to hire or fire any employee

Keeping the nature of their duties and designation, plea of the petitioner was not found convincing

Workman was a person who was not an employer and he was not engaged in managerial or administrative capacity

Status of a workman was determined not by his designation but the nature of the duties performed by him which must be skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical in nature

No illegality or irregularity was found in the concurrent judgments passed by NIRC

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Employee can get his date of birth changed within two years of joining service and not later.

Competent authority could make appointments and determine seniority, eligibility, fitness and promotion and other ancillary matters with regard to terms and conditions of employees

Petitioners lacked length of service for their further promotion in the present case

Promotion of employees would depend upon their seniority-cum-fitness and availability of posts

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed or granted without actual length of service on account of vested rights

High Court observed that if none of the employees had required length of service for regular promotion then appointment of eligible employee might be made on acting charge basis after observing codal and procedural formalities

Competent authority (employer) was entitled to make rules in the interest or expediency of service and remove anomalies in service rules

Authority had to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion which was an administrative matter within the exclusive domain and policy decision making of respondents

High Court declined interference when there was no violation of any law

No vested rights of petitioners were involved in the matter of promotion or the rules determining their eligibility or fitness

Constitutional petition suffered from laches and petitioners were not entitled for the relief claimed in the petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Employee applied for old-age pension but his claim was refused by Regional Claim Committee holding that he had not completed the mandatory length of service

Grievance petition filed by the employee was accepted by the Labour Court

Validity

Remedy of appeal against the decision of Institution was available to the employee but he filed grievance petition before Labour Court which decided the matter

Act of employee by passing the statutory remedy available to him was not justified and he could not be rescued by High Court

Where an alternate remedy was available to any person then he could not be allowed to supersede or skip the same

Nobody could be allowed to bypass any provision of law and procedure laid down for a particular purpose

Labour Court could deal with the adjudication and determination of industrial dispute, unfair labour practices and matters with regard to implementation or violation of a settlement referred to it by the Government

Employee worked for textile mill and present dispute was not an industrial dispute

Question of payment of pension did not fall within the definition of unfair labour practice

Every individual had right to be dealt with in accordance with law and no person was liable to do which the law did not require him to do

Impugned action was initiated and taken to its logical conclusion under a misconception of law and under a wrong law and it had vitiated entire proceedings including final order

Where procedure had been provided for doing a thing in a particular manner then same should be done in that manner alone and not in any other way or it should not be done at all otherwise it would be considered non-compliance of the legislative intent and would be deemed illegal

Labour Court had not acted in accordance with law by assuming the jurisdiction of which it was not bestowed

Labour Court was not empowered to take cognizance of the matter and its order was illegal and void

Entire exercise by the Labour Court while passing the impugned orders was illegal and without jurisdiction

Where order was passed without jurisdiction, High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could interfere into the matter

Impugned orders had been passed by the Labour Court without jurisdiction therefore, there was no need to avail remedy of appeal by the department

Impugned order passed by the Courts below were set aside

Employee would be free to approach the competent forum of law for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Grievance petition filed by the employee was allowed by the Labour Court but Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the same

Validity

Employee was appointed as Female Peon on 17-07-1995 and at the time of recruitment her date of birth was recorded as 22-02-1955 and not 22-02-1961

Employee served her grievance notice after her retirement from service

Employee had failed to substantiate her claim by producing school certificate/birth certificate before the Trial Court

Employee had not filed her case for correction of date of birth before the department within the period of two years from the date of joining service

Employee filed representation before the department for change of her date of birth after twenty three years when she was near her retirement

Constitutional petition of employee was dismissed, in circumstances.

Back benefits, were awarded not as punishment to the employer for wrongful removing the worker, but to compensate the worker for the loss sustained by him due to his inability to get himself employed in any gainful pursuit

Back benefits, were not automatic on the finding of removal as wrongful

For claiming back benefits, the worker must show that despite all possible efforts on his part, he could not employ himself in any gainful pursuit

Worker could not choose to sit idle for long period and wait for making unearned gain in the shape of back benefits.

Practice of obtaining such consent from employee was deprecated by the Supreme Court.

Practice of obtaining such consent from employee was deprecated by the Supreme Court.

Employee was found to have committed the act of misconduct as he left the Branch of the Bank which was a locker holding Branch without any compelling circumstances

Bank remained unguarded despite the fact that nature of petitioner's job required to be performed by him was sensitive

Absence from duty by the employee caused major loss to the Bank

Petitioner had failed to make out a case of reinstatement into service

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Wife of deceased employee filed constitutional petition for grant of pensionary benefits which was accepted holding that disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against an employee for his non-performance or ill-performance of duties who was alive and in the service of organization/department

Validity

Employee-husband of petitioner died prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings

Disciplinary proceedings had abated and no order could have been passed against the deceased employee

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Neither the Appellate Tribunal had discussed the employees' case of being over-aged nor passed a speaking order in such regard

Impugned judgment was silent with regard to findings on the issue of discrimination

Public functionaries were bound to pass a speaking order

Labour Appellate Tribunal was obliged to decide appeal and redress the grievance of citizen and/or employee after application of mind with reasons

Neither the arguments of the parties had been discussed nor reason and justification had been disclosed for coming to the conclusion

Impugned judgment suffered from infirmity and was liable to be set aside

Case was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh by passing a speaking order

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was "workman" and was aggrieved of decision passed by National Industrial Relations Commission, declining to allow him to amend his date of birth

Validity

Petitioner superannuated on 30-6-2016 and steps taken by him to have his year of birth entered in records of employer changed about a year prior to his retirement had made petitioner's case bereft of bona fides

Stale and belated applications for alteration of date of birth could not be entertained

High Court observed that change of date of birth was a very important responsibility to be discharged since there had been a general tendency amongst employees to lower their age and change their date of birth to suit their career and to lengthen their service career

High Court declined to interfere in appellate order passed by National Industrial Relations Commission

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Daily wage employee had no right to claim regularization of his service.

Employer (Bank) being a trans-provincial establishment, employee could seek remedy by filing appropriate proceedings before National Industrial Relations Commission.

Benefit of judgment of the court should be extended to other employees who might not be parties to the litigation and fell in the same category, instead of compelling them to approach the legal forum.

Purpose for issuing show-cause notice and holding of inquiry was to ascertain whether charges leveled against the employee were proved or not.

In the present case, the Labour Court had rightly refused to make an interim award without hearing other party but on revision, the same was suspended

Subsequently, the Labour Court, contrary to its earlier observations made the interim award and issued direction to implement the same in letter and spirit, which was violation of law

Labour Court was directed by High Court to decide the matter after hearing the parties

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Company, which was a Statutory Company, announced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was applicable up to January 1998 and period for relieving the employees was extended up to 28th February, 1998

All employees, serving the company, who had served for more than ten years applied for retirement under said scheme

Employees before acceptance/relieving/payment, had submitted requests for withdrawal of options of retirement given by them

Employees had withdrawn their options, unconditionally before effectivity of the scheme

Company ignored withdrawal of options of the employees and issued retirement letter and relieved them from the duties

Validity

Company met the employees with high-handedness

Employees had withdrawn their option before the effective date and if the option had been withdrawn, before the effective date of retirement, same should have been considered as withdrawn

Once the employees had withdrawn their option, the retirement even on extra benefits, was illegal

Company was directed to reinstate the employees and thereafter would determine the amount of wages and other emoluments (back benefits) payable to them under the law.

Petitioner joined the Water Works Department a few months earlier than respondent, but thereafter petitioner changed the said department and joined the Disposal Works Department

When the petitioner left one department with his own wish, then he could not claim seniority of the earlier department

When an employee would leave his own department and join the other one, the rule of seniority was that he would be at the tail end of the seniority list of the new/joined department

Courts below while passing impugned judgments had taken into consideration all the material aspects of the case

Concurrent findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petition was dismissed.

Petitioner joined the Water Works Department a few months earlier than respondent, but thereafter petitioner changed the said department and joined the Disposal Works Department

When the petitioner left one department with his own wish, then he could not claim seniority of the earlier department

When an employee would leave his own department and join the other one, the rule of seniority was that he would be at the tail end of the seniority list of the new/joined department

Courts below while passing impugned judgments had taken into consideration all the material aspects of the case

Concurrent findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petition was dismissed.

Federation of Trade Unions, had invoked the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission under S.56, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 for determination of a dispute wherein certain demand had been raised

Employer Bank raised preliminary objection contending that dispute in any case had to be raised in prescribed manner, because it was clearly stated under S.35 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 'that no industrial dispute would be deemed to exist when it had not been raised in the prescribed manner, which had been laid down in Ss.25(1) to 31(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and was applicable to all kinds of disputes including the one mentioned in S.56 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002

Management argued that no short cut was available to straightaway file industrial dispute before National Industrial Relations Commission for adjudication because that would be against the spirit of the Ordinance

Management further stated that S.56 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 visualized a Federation of Trade Unions of establishments and not for a single establishment and that S.56 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 could not be attracted in the present case, as such the petition was misconceived

Validity

Under provisions of S.25(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, an 'industrial dispute could be raised in their own right both by the employer as well as trade union of workers having the status of Collective Bargaining Agent-In order to be effective in their respective position the workers could exercise the right to strike and the employer had a right to declare lock-out

Social dialogues, or in other words process of collective bargaining was a pre-requisite for successful conclusion of an industrial dispute raised by any of the two sides of the industry, whether it ended in the form of agreement as a result of bilateral negotiation or a settlement as a result of conciliatory efforts or by an award of arbitrator or Labour Court or of National Industrial Relations Commission, depending upon the situation or circumstances of the matter

Since `Industrial dispute', by its definition contained in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2000, related to matter of interest and not matters of right, ought to be initiated by the process of social dialogue and not by straightaway knocking at the door of a judicial forum for adjudication

Petition filed by the petitioner which was not based on the correct application of the existing law was totally misconceived in the eyes of law

Same was dismissed in circumstances.

Hiring of manpower is justified on the ground that it is the right of employer to decide how to manage affairs in the establishment

Employer has the right to outsource, however such right must be bona fide exercised and such outsourcing must be genuine outsourcing and not merely a paper arrangement to shut out a worker and to defeat the provisions of Labour Laws

Where a contractual arrangement is merely a paper arrangement then it is duty of Court to go behind the agreement and to see the real transaction.

Technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of justice and Labour Laws must be implemented in favour of workmen, especially when employer himself was also guilty in not fulfilling the technicalities.

Bank had terminated their services on the ground that although the employees were appointed by the bank yet, their salaries were being paid by the borrowers/loanees

Validity

No equilibrium of bargaining strength between employer and employees existed

Manner in which the employees had been dealt with by the bank was a fraud on the statute.

Bank had terminated their services on the ground that although the employees were appointed by the bank yet their salaries were being paid by the borrowers/loanees

Validity

No equilibrium of bargaining strength between employer and employees existed

Manner in which the employees had been dealt with by the bank was a fraud on the statute.

Employee on account of his domestic circumstances and on ground that he had completed about 39 years of his service applied for his premature requirement w.e.f. 29-6-2002

Application of employee for his premature retirement was not disposed of arid during pendency of said application a show­-cause notice was issued to him which was accompanied with a statement of certain allegations against him and thereafter he was put under suspension

Such suspension order subsequently was withdrawn and period of suspension of employee was treated as on duty

Employee thereafter again submitted application for his retirement from 30-6-2003 instead of 29-6-2002, but employee wad not retired according to his request on said modified date, but retired prior to more than three -ninths from date mentioned by employee in his application for his retirement

Said order of employers would be treated as an order of compulsory retirement of employee which was not possible without a disciplinary action against him

Since allegations against employee were withdrawn by employers, he was reinstated in service and period of his suspension was treated on duty, and he was to be retired according to his request

Action of employers in retiring employee according to their own choice, was unwarranted by rules and regulations on the subject

­Employee would be considered having been prematurely retired w.e.f. 30-6-2003 which date was mentioned by him in his application for his premature retirement.

Labour laws being beneficial and benevolant in character have to be construed liberally in order to advance cause of workman.

Employee was dismissed from service, but Labour Court after appreciating evidence on record concluded that employee was wrongly dismissed from service and reinstated him in service with all back-benefits

Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld finding of Labour Court, but awarded reduced award by reducing back benefits to employee to one-half observing that employee having not rendered any practical service to employer he was not entitled to have full back-benefits

Validity

Record, including evidence showed that employee throughout remained jobless

Employee was found innocent in enquiry conducted against him by both Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal

After confirming finding of Labour Court to the effect that employee was ousted from service for no fault on his part and that he deserved reinstatement in service from date of his unjustified dismissal, reduction of back benefits by Labour Appellate Tribunal to one-half, was unjustified

No reasons had been given by Labour Appellate'Tribunal except that employee "had not rendered practical services to employer­ Establishment "

Order of reduction of back-benefits to one-half, passed by Labour Appellate Tribunal, being not justified, could not sustain

Order of Labour Court was restored, in circumstances.

Record showed that employee was legally entitled for his outstanding dues and back-benefits according to his officer scale in view of the agreement entered into between CBA and the employer under the Golden Handshake Scheme

Contention of the employer that the employee was entitled to payment of his wages for the purpose of retirement and relieving under Golden Handshake Scheme as unionised staff as a clerical worker was repelled in circumstances

High Court thus declined interference in the orders of Workmen's Commission and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to the effect that employer had not made payment to the employee and failed to fulfil his legal obligation.

Undesirable servants could not be trusted upon an unwilling master.

Foreign slip allowance is subject to stay in some foreign country in connection with official duty and the same, cannot be allowed without performing the same

Employee performing ground duties cannot claim foreign slip allowance.

Proviso to section cuts down the meaning of that section as a proviso to a group of sections cuts down the meaning of that group

Provisos are not generally intended to do more than the same.

Person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or slam or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening or -in violent or tumultuous behaviour, or (b) makes unreasonable noise of offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or' addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

Criminal prosecution against employee and departmental proceedings against him could be taken side by side independent of each other.

Permanent workman and temporary workman

Distinction.

Employees who had accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme and were no more in service of employer, were not entitled for any payment for which they had not worked when amount due had already been released by employer and had: been received by them.

Labour Court after insertion of S.2-A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 could only entertain and adjudicate in the matter of industrial dispute under S. 32 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and transfer of employee of Bank could not be a matter of industrial dispute.

Employee who was dismissed from service, was ordered to be re-instated in service, but period between his dismissal and reinstatement was excluded from period of his service

Employee though had himself signified his consent for not claiming arrears of emoluments for period over which there was practical break in service, but said break in service could not create unbridgeable gap in period of his service and service of employee was to be treated continuous

Period of break of service had to be taken into account for purpose of calculation of total length of service

Entire span of service would have to be treated as a continuous one while undertaking whole service for determination of seniority and entitlement respecting regularization and confirmation of service as also award of annual increments and for calculation of pension, gratuity etc.

Law intended and ordained that matter should primarily, at least initially, be brought under discussion by Labour Court and thereafter by Labour Appellate Tribunal

Procedure as also proprietary and expediency and wisdom of the process required and dictated that Court of first instance should proceed with the matter on entertaining it and even at the initial stage should render well-considered, sane, sound, judicious balanced and equitably maintainable order.