| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1948 2023 76 2023 SLD 1948 |
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
Writ Petition No.2162 of 2022, heard on 19th October,2022.Date of hearing: 19th October, 2022.
Before Jawad Hassan, J
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court for the
Respondent No.1.Malik Itaat Hussain Awan for FBR.Muhammad Sajid Khan Tanoli, DAG with Abdul Basit Tanoli for
Writ Petition No.2162 of 2022, heard on 19th October,2022.Date of hearing: 19th October, 2022.
Before Jawad Hassan, J
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court for the
Respondent No.1.Malik Itaat Hussain Awan for FBR.Muhammad Sajid Khan Tanoli, DAG with Abdul Basit Tanoli for
ALL WORKMEN EMPLOYED BY DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.VersusMessrs DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. and others
Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Section: 11-A,12,13,14
Law: Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010
Section: 33
(a) Decree--- ---Consent decree---Scope---Consent decree or order is nothing but a contract between the parties with command of the Court superadded to it. Zafar Ahmad and 5 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Production, Islamabad and 6 others 1994 MLD 1612 and Riaz Hussain v. Mazaray Khan 1988 CLC 1129 ref. (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----Sched., S.O. 11-A, 12, 13 14---Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), S. 33---Closure of manufacturing unit and retrenchment of employees---Legality---Plea on behalf of petitioner (workmen) that an agreement was executed amongst parties in the year 1992, which agreement was later endorsed in proceedings before the Supreme Court, and included a stipulation that the respondent-company would not force in closure of the establishment and that the respondent-company was bound to abide by said stipulation/terms---Validity---Agreement agitated by the petitioner was settled with a management which later skipped out of business handing over/transferring the control / administration to some other management, which management later was replaced with further successive replacements---Objects and purposes now allegedly necessitating closure of the respondent-company did not exist at the time said agreement was allegedly struck amongst parties---Furthermore neither the petitioner initiated any contempt petition for violation of the past order of the Supreme Court based upon compromise/agreement between the parties, nor any grievance petition was filed under section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010---Petitioner fell in sleep and slumber not adopting legal recourses structured for it for redressal of its agitated grievance---All the documents/exhibits relied by the Labour Court showed that outdated, deteriorated and technology deficient status of manufacturing plants/units of the respondent-company were the features for the bid of respondent-company forming basis for its closure---Outcome of existing status of the respondent-company was definitely loss of sources, added costs, substandard and outdated products and environment…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492