Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 905 1979 SLD 905 1979 PLC 66
Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.
L. A. T. A. No. 84 of 1978, decided on 4th November 1978.
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, CHAIRMAN

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

LABOUR UNION

VS

ADAMJI PAPER MILLS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 40(2) -Settlement, duration of-Settlement arrived at between parties continues to be binding for period agreed upon-Extension of two months after expiry of one year envisaged by S. 40(2)-Avail­able from date of signing of memo. of settlement only when no period as to operation of settlement agreed upon. 1967 P L C 166 ; P L D 1970 S C 292 ; 1972 P L C 190 ; 1966 PLC 70; A I R 1957 Cal. 5CO;AIR1957SC3B;PLD 1961 S C 393; P L D 1979 Lah. 955; 1969 P L C 341; 1974 P L C Note 76 at p. 42 ; 1977 PLC323and1962PLC323ref. J. D. Akbarji for Appellant. Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Respondent. Date of hearing : 28th October 1978. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order of the learned Labour Court dated 14-5-1978, whereby the application of the appellant under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969 for the enforcement of settlement, was dismissed. 2. The facts, out of which the present appeal arises, are that the appellant Union is the Collective Bargaining Agent (C. B. A.) in the establishment of the respondent (Messrs Adamjee Paper and Board Mills Ltd. Amangarb, Nowshera. The Union had entered into a settlement (Exh. P. W. 1/3) in August, 1974, for a period of one year and 3 months; ending on 15th of October, 1975. One of the demands accepted by the parties was that any recruitment in the Mills would be on merit basis and preference will be given to the children of the employees of the Mills. Subsequently the respondent employed a watchman named Sardaraz son of Karim Khan, and the appellant questioned his appointment before the Labour Court, as it was, according to them, in violation of clause (16) of the Settle­ment dated 3-8-1974, as there were more qualified persons from the families of the employees of the Mills and they should have been given preference over Sardaraz. The learned Labour Court dismissed the petition and hence this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the settlement dated 3-8-1974 was still in force, when the appointment of Sardaraz was made. He referred to section 34 of the I. R. O. which reads. "Any Collective Bargaining Agent or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492