Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 39(d)

  Industrial Relations Ordinance (IXXIII of 1969) S. 39(d)---Settlement arrived at between employer and collective bargaining agent-binding on all workmen---Workmen's con tention that they had become permanent contrary to terms of settlement rejected. Date of hearing : 12th May 1973.   ORDER This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated February 27, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the re-instatement of the respondent as confirmed Inspector from December, 1963 and payment of Rs. 1,980, which the respondent was entitled to as increment from 1963 in his pay. The fats necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these. 2. The respondent was employed as a Conductor. He was promoted as acting Inspector in the Mohammad Ali Tramway Company (hereinafter called the appellant) in May, 1963. The case of the respondent was that he worked up to June, 1972, in a permanent vacancy as an acting Inspector. On the other hand, the case of the appellant was that there was no permanent post of Inspector. The respondent was given a choice to acquaint himself with the various duties of Inspector by promoting him as an acting Inspector. He was also given an allowance of Rs. 2a). The case of the appellant further was that as a number of routes of the Tramway were closed, the appellant had to wait for promoting an acting Inspector as Inspector. In fact, the appellant had decided to revert the respondent as Conductor, but on the request of the respondent, he was allowed to continue as acting Inspector on payment of Rs. 20 as allowance. The respondent was charge-sheeted on 15th June, 1972, for being negligent in his duties. The respondent gave his explanation in response to the show-cause notice, which was not found satisfactory by the appellant Company. The respondent, therefore, without being given an opportunity to be heard was reverted as Conductor on 20th June, 1972. Thereafter, his services were terminated from 1st August, 1972. According to the appellant, the services of the respondent were terminated at his own request and not for any misconduct. The respondent made an…