| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2169 1961 SLD 2169 = 1961 PLD 383 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 35-D of 1959, decided on 17th May 1961.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
M. Fazlur Rahman Senior Advocate Supreme Court (E. F. Aragon Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Naimuddin Ahmad Attorney for Appellants. Hamidul Haq Chowdhury and M. H. Khundhkar Senior Advo cates Supreme Court (Mozammal Huq Advocate Supreme Court with them) instructed by A. Wadud Mian Attorney for Respon dent No. 1. T. H. Khan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shahabuddin Ahmad Attorney for
Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 3 : Ex parte. Dates of hearing : 18th, 19th, 20th and 22nd April 1961.
Civil Appeal No. 35-D of 1959, decided on 17th May 1961.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
M. Fazlur Rahman Senior Advocate Supreme Court (E. F. Aragon Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Naimuddin Ahmad Attorney for Appellants. Hamidul Haq Chowdhury and M. H. Khundhkar Senior Advo cates Supreme Court (Mozammal Huq Advocate Supreme Court with them) instructed by A. Wadud Mian Attorney for Respon dent No. 1. T. H. Khan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shahabuddin Ahmad Attorney for
Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 3 : Ex parte. Dates of hearing : 18th, 19th, 20th and 22nd April 1961.
(1) NATIONAL AND GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED CHITTAGONG,(2) THE CHARTERED BANK, CHITTAGONG, MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED, CHITTAGONG, LLOYDS BANK LIMITED, CHITTAGONG AND EASTERN BANK LIMITED, CHITTAGONG Appellants
VERSUS
THE EAST PAKISTAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION CHITTAGONG, THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND (3) A. AWAL, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DACCA-Respondents
Law: Industrial Disputes Act, (XIV of 1947)
Section: S. 10
(On appeal from the award of the Fist Industrial Tribunal, Government of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 21st January 1959, in the Industrial Dispute Case No. 12 of 1957, published in the Dacca Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 2nd February 1959). (a) Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947)------- ----S. 10-Reference of "general industrial dispute" to Tribunal without stating points jot adjudication-Not bad provided Government had applied its mind to nature of dispute Employers acquiescence in proceedings before Tribunal and acceptance of some of Tribunal's decisions against their own interest-Factors against reference being held as wholly bad [Pakistan Match Company Limited P L D 1959 S C 337 distingu ished]. (b) Industrial dispute----- ----House allowance-Tribunal's decision guided mainly by sympathetic speculation with practically no evidence-Set aside. (c) Industrial dispute------ ----Medical facilities-Employer choosing fixed money value (Rs. 2.25) for each employee-Tribunal deciding upon elaborate scheme of medical relief, within monetary limits suggested by employer-Tribunal's scheme preferred. (d) Industrial dispute------- ----Working hours-Bank-"Staggering" allowed as a "necessity" for banks-Total number of hours per week not to be varied. (e) Industrial dispute---- --- -"Non-employment" explained-Dismissals in consequence of and after strike resorted to by workers five years before and not related to dispute before Tribunal--Dis missals, held, not covered by term "non-employment"-Re-instatements set asideIndustrial Dispute Act (XIV of 1947), S. 10. The expression "non-employment" is, to say the least, a peculiar expression in a legal context, although it might be accepted as appropriate in a philosophic disquisition. The expression has to be given a restricted meaning, and one of the restrictions must be that non-employment mast be regarded as a condition following upon a state of employment, and that such non employment must be the result of incidents or actions which are matters falling within the definition of…