| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1972 SLD 3112 = 1972 PLC 484 |
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal
Appeals Nos. LHR-73 and 75 of 1972, decided on 8th July 1972.
Presented By: M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal
Syed Shin Gul v. Haji Abdul Majid PLD 1968 Quetta 45; Mst. Rup Devi v. Matwal Chand P L D 968 Lah. 800; Abdul Jamil v. Registrar, Trade Unions, West Pakistan, Lahore and another P L D 1971 Lah. 220; Quebec Railways, light, Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry and others A I R 1920 P C 181 and Queen v. Bishop of Oxford (1879) 4 P B D 245 rel. Nazir Ahmad Naz and Mahmood Zaman for Appellants. Abdul Majid Qureshi and Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for
Respondents.
Appeals Nos. LHR-73 and 75 of 1972, decided on 8th July 1972.
Presented By: M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal
Syed Shin Gul v. Haji Abdul Majid PLD 1968 Quetta 45; Mst. Rup Devi v. Matwal Chand P L D 968 Lah. 800; Abdul Jamil v. Registrar, Trade Unions, West Pakistan, Lahore and another P L D 1971 Lah. 220; Quebec Railways, light, Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry and others A I R 1920 P C 181 and Queen v. Bishop of Oxford (1879) 4 P B D 245 rel. Nazir Ahmad Naz and Mahmood Zaman for Appellants. Abdul Majid Qureshi and Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for
Respondents.
EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 34, 37
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 34 & 37----- Judgment of Labour Court under 'S. 34-Not an award Not appealable before Labour Appellate Tribunal-Words of statutes cannot be deemed as superfluous or redundant-Interpretation of statutes. Date of hearing: 7th June 1972 ORDER Both these appeals are against the judgment passed by the Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 169. Since the main point of law involved in both these appeals is as to whether a decision given under section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is appealable, these appeals on this point will be disposed of together by this order. 2. Mr. Mahmood Zaman, the learned counsel for one of the appellants contended that a decision of Labour Court under section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is an award and not a decision and, therefore, appealable. In support of his contention he relied upon the definition of an industrial dispute as given in clause (xiii) of section 2, Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, which reads as follows:- "'Industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is concerned with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employ ment or the conditions of work of any person." According to the learned counsel, an industrial dispute also related to the legal rights which are concerned with the employ ment and non-employment of a workman. Such an application under section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the enforcement of a legal right falls within the definition of indus trial dispute in clause (xiii) of section 2 of the Ordinance. He also alleged that if the dispute is not covered by an existing settlement or an award or any other law, then the ordinary procedure of raising dispute under section 26(2) to section 32 will have to be followed. In other cases direct access is provided to the Court under section 34. He made a reference to section 35(5)(a), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which reads as follows:--- "A Labour…