| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 1691 1977 SLD 1691 1977 PLC 489 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 663 of 1973, decided on 1st November 1973.
DORAB PATEL, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Constitutional Petition No. 663 of 1973, decided on 1st November 1973.
DORAB PATEL, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
NASIM SILK INDUSTRIES
VS
FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT ETC.
Law:
Section:
(a) industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- -- S. 25-A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 18 (since omitted by Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 1972) Individual grievance, redress of-Termination of employment-Worker required to prosecute his remedies only within a prescribed period and after notice to his employer-Twin conditions (as above) required to be fulfilled to give jurisdiction to Labour Court-Continue to be same as those for Industrial Court under S. O. 18-Worker not serving grievance notice on employer--Labour Court, held, not invested with jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition against termination of employment. Standing Order 18 was omitted from the Standing Orders Ordinance, by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, on 13-4-1972, and substituted by section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Now this section, as originally enacted, entitled a worker to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer either directly or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union "within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises". The employer was thereafter required to communicate his decision on the grievance to the worker "within fifteen days of the grievant being brought to his notice'". Finally, if the employer failed to communicate his decision, or, if the worker was dissatisfied with it, he had to prosecute his remedy in the labour Court directly or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union "within a period of two months of the day of the communication to the employer." The effect o: the change in the law was to entitle the worker to prosecute his grievance through his shop Steward or Trade Union and to enlarge the period within which he could prosecute his grievance. But despite these changes, the worker was required to prosecute his remedies only within a prescribed period and after notice to his employer. Thus the twin conditions for the jurisdiction of the Labour Court continued to be the same as those for the Industrial Court under Standing Order 18, and, as admittedly the 2nd respondent had never served his employer…
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