Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 1177 2012 SLD 1177 2012 PLC 9
National Industrial Relations Commission
No.4A(163)2010-K/24(185)/2010-K, decision dated: 24-03-2011.
BASHIR AHMED MEMON, MEMBER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 5 others

VS

Messrs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. through Chief Executive Officer and another MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 5 others vs Messrs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. through Chief Executive Officer and another

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act (XV of 2010)-------Ss. 17, 25(8)(g), 26(3)(b) & 50---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1974, Regln.32---Petition against unfair labour practice on part of the employers---Interim stay order, application for---Four petitioners/Individual workers and two non-Collective Bargaining Agent Unions in their petitions had prayed for declaring them permanent employees of the respondent/Management and to declare the agreement signed by Management and Collective Bargaining Agent as void agreement---Under Ss.17(e)(F), 26(3)(b) & 50 of Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010, it was only the Collective Bargaining Agent which could file the proceedings and that too for the enforcement of any right guaranteed and secured to the Collective Bargaining Agent under any law, settlement or award---Petitioners/Collective Bargaining Agent could not espouse the cause of individual workers and they had no locus standi to challenge the agreement/settlement, which had been implemented and acted upon and the benefits thereof had been taken by petitioners also---National Industrial Relations Commission, in circumstances, could not interfere in the agreement which had already acted upon, even if it was deemed to be an act of unfair labour practice, and it could not be stayed in the proceedings---Petitioner had failed to point out as to which ingredients of unfair labour practice was attracted and only bald and vague allegations had been made without any substance and instance of unfair labour practice---Earlier the petitioners had filed constitutional petition on the same point of regularization and High Court disposed of the petition as the counsel for the parties had agreed that negotiations between the Management and the Collective Bargaining Agent would be completed within a period of one month---Same issue could not again be raised by the petitioners before the Bench of National Industrial and Relations Commission---If petitioners had any grievance, they could approach the proper forum---Petitioners, having failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice, petition…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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