Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3091 = 1981 SLD 3091 = 1981 PLC 242
National Industrial Relations Commission
Case No. 18(70) of 1980, decided on 28th September, 1980.
Presented By: Aziz Ahmad, Member
Ayub Shah, Representative for Petitioners. Aftab Ahmad Khan for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AND 7 OTHERS

VERSUS

DELLINGHAM NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT VENTURE, TARBELA DAM PROJECT

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute Resignation-Workman applying for revision and increase of wages and stating also that otherwise he would request Management to relieve him from date convenient to Management-Such letter in shape of request for higher rate of wages, held, should not have been considered as resignation - Management considering such letter as resignation accepting same but re-employing with short break of 4 to 5 days-Break in service, in circumstances, condoned towards continuity of service but without any wages for such period-Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), S. 6. Date of hearing : 2nd August, 1980.                                                                                                        DIRECTIONS This petition has been submitted by Muhammad Manzur Mechanic and 7 other Mechanics of D. M. C. Tarbela Dam under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, against the Agent D. N. C. Joint Venture Tarbela Dam. It has been submitted that the petitioners had been working as mechanics for more than one year to the entire satisfaction of the respondent. The petitioners bad submitted an application to the Management requesting for increase in their wages but the respondent did not accept their demand and on 28th April, 1980, the respon dent issued service certificates saying that their resignations have been accepted with effect from 28th April, 1980, and that they should collect their dues from their paymaster. It has been submitted that in accordance with the agreement between the petitioners and the respondent either of the parties was required to give one month's notice in case of resignation or one month's pay in lieu thereof if no notice was given. The respondent, therefore, violated the conditions of the agreement and the termination of the petitioners was bad in law. It has further been submitted that the petitioners were willing to…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register