Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 47

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XX III of 1969), S. 47 and East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 2(q)-Retrenchment of redundant workers proposed during pendency of industrial case-Application seeking permission of Court, held, does not lie.   DECISION MD. NURIIL ISLAM KHAN (CHAMMAN). This is an application under section 417 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 4969, hereinafter referred to as the 1. R. O. filed by the Secretary, Fast Pakistan Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter called as the E. P. R. T. C., for permission to retrench 266 surplus workers. The case of the first party is that Industrial Relations Case No. 164 of 1970 between the present petitioner, the E. P. R. T. C. and the opposite-party the E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union is pending before this Court for adjudication. Under a recent survey for taking economic measure, the E. P. R. T. C. has found 266 redundant workers. For retrenching them they seek permission of the Court for retrenchment in view of the pendency of I. R. Case No. 164 of 1970. This is being done as a measure of economy as the E. P. R. T. C. is losing rupees fifty thousand per month to retain the surplus staff. The measure would be taken in exercise of economy and this would be no measure of punishment against the workers. Even during the pendency of the present case the E. P. R. T. C. approaches the Court for according permission to take necessary action as prayed for. During the course of the proceedings it was stated that in the pendency of Case No. 164/1970 in which the E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union was the first party as the collective bargaining agent of the workers, the notice should be& served not upon the a individual workers to be retrenched, but upon the E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union. Accordingly, notice was served upon the E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union. During the pendency of the proceeding a list of the workers proposed to be retrenched was furnished to the other party. The opposite-party wanted to file written objection and they filed written objection on 30-6-1970 on which day the matter was heard. In their written objection the opposite-party, the…