Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3013 1970 SLD 3013 = 1970 PLC 481
Election Tribunal, Pakistan
Appeal No. KAR-111 of 1970, heard on 15th' May1970.  
Presented By: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal
B. Mahmood A. Ghani for Appellant. Gul Muhammad, General Secretary of the Union for
Respondent.

MESSERS PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, KARACHI

VERSUS

PAKISTAN BATTERY WORKERS' UNION

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 34

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), ---S. 34 "Right guaranteed or secured . . . . . under law---dismissal of workman--Employer's right to dismiss worker, held, not a "right guaranteed or secured" for purposes of adjudication of dispute by Court' under S. 34-West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O.15. The workers' Union raised a demand for the re-instatement of some workers dismissed by the employer for misconduct under the provisions of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The employer made an application under section- 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for adjudication by the Court on the plea that Standing Order 15 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 having guaranteed or secured a right to the employer to dismiss a workman, the Court should adjudicate the industrial dispute relating, the demand of re-instatement of such dismissed workers. Held: The right to dismiss a workman is not a right, which can be said to have been guaranteed or secured under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The right to dismiss a servant follows from Contractual Right between the parties, namely, the employer and that employee. The tight to dismiss the employees is a Contractual Right and it cannot be said to be a right which has been guaranteed under the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Standing Orders Ordinance proceeds on the presumption that the maser has a right to dismiss its servant. It has, in fact, made provisions to safeguard the interest of the workers than the employers. There is as such no denial to the conclusion that the employer could dismiss its employee without taking resort to the Standing Orders Ordinance; and it cannot, therefore, be said that any such right was guaranteed, under the said provisions of the Standing Orders, The provisions of section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in these circumstances was not attracted. Karnaphully Paper Mills Limited v. Workers'-Union…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register