| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3082 1971 SLD 3082 = 1971 PLC 392 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal
Application No. 354 of 1970, decided on 22nd December 1970.
Presented By: Mahmood Ahmad Soofi, Chairman
Application No. 354 of 1970, decided on 22nd December 1970.
Presented By: Mahmood Ahmad Soofi, Chairman
ABDUL SHAKOOR QURESHI, MANAGER, WPIDC, QAIDABAD WOOLLEN MILLS, QAIDABAD
VERSUS
MIAN MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 54, 64, 35
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ----S. 54-Violation of operative settlement-No vested right in any person to, institute a complaint of criminal nature before Labour Court. Keeping in view the provisions of sections 54 and 64 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, one may legitimately maintaining that there is nothing in any of these provisions that could be considered to have conferred a vested right on any person to institute a complaint of a criminal nature in a Labour Court for the purpose of invoking the punitive jurisdiction of a Labour Court against any workman who is alleged to have violated any binding settlement arrived at between the parties. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)------- ------S. 54 read with Ss. 64 & 35 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 12, 14 & 30-Breach of settlement, award or binding decision Labour Court cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction in absence of notification of Provincial Government under Ss. 12, 14 & 30 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. No criminal jurisdiction can be exercised by the Chairman of Labour Court under section 54 read with subsection (3) of section 36 and also read with section 64 of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, 1969, in the absence of any notification of the Provincial Government under either section 12 or section 14 or section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (as amended up-to-date). The mere fact that subsection (3) of section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has declared that a Labour Court shall, for the purpose of trying an offence under this Ordinance, have the same powers as have been vested in the Courts of Magistrates of the first class under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. does not warrant the belief that the entire Labour Court (including two members) must readily take cognizance of a complaint instituted before it under section 54 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, even though no notification has been issued by the Provincial Government for vesting such criminal jurisdiction in the two Members of that Labour Court and even though the exact territorial limits within which that Labour Court…