Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2877 2016 SLD 2877 2016 PLC 411
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-173 of 2015, decided on 15thJune, 2015, Date of hearing: 9th April, 2015.
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE AND ASHRAF, JAHAN, JUSTICE
Jamal Bukhari for Petitioners.Muhammad Hamayun and Ghulam Murtaza Sariyo for contesting
Respondents.

SULTAN AHMEDVSVITH CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT MALIR, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: 2(xxxiii),33,54,57,58

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)------Sections 2(xxxiii), 33, 54, 57 & 58---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i) & S.O.16---Termination of service---Grievance petition---Notice to vacate residential accommodation---Interim relief, grant of---Petitioners, who were permanent workmen, their services were terminated---Aggrieved by such action of the employers, petitioners filed grievance petitions before National Industrial Relations Commission along with application for interim relief---Commission granted interim relief to the petitioners---Pending grievance petitions, employers gave notice to the petitioners to vacate the residential accommodation that was being occupied by the petitioners---Despite the Commission had directed the employers to maintain status quo, employers filed complaint under S.O.16 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Magistrate before whom said complaint was filed, directed the petitioners to vacate the residential premises occupied by them within a period of two months---Validity---Interim orders made by Commission, continued to hold field; and Magistrate concerned was informed of the said interim orders---Complaint, in circumstances, could not have been filed and Magistrate ought not to have proceeded with hearing said complaint---Interim order in question was in personam---Standing Order 16, was neither mandatory in nature, nor did it come into operation automatically and simply gave an option to the employer, should he choose to exercise the same---When the Magistrate was apprised of the existence of the interim orders, Magistrate ought to have stayed his hand---At the most he ought to have directed the parties to proceed with the petitions pending before the Commission---Magistrate fell into serious legal error in continuing with the proceedings under S.O.16---Recourse to S.O. 16, was at the volition of the employer and if there was an interim order in personam against the employer, employer could not be allowed to violate the same and proceed under S.O.16---Impugned order of the Magistrate suffered from material and serious errors of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register