Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 920 1979 SLD 920 1979 PLC 107
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR-28 of 1977, heard on 29th June 1977.
GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

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

STAFF AND WORKERS UNION

VS

MESSRS DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD. KARACHI

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- S. 32 (1-A)-Industrial dispute-Raising of-Previous award of Labour Court still in force (not more than 2 years old)-Dispute con­taining demands of financial implications, held, could not be raised-­Demands not involving financial implications entertained and adjudicated. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- -- Ss. 32(1-A) & 34-Dispute containing demand relating to bonus covered by statutory provisions-Cannot be made subject-matter of industrial dispute-Such matter, held, should be claimed by application under S. 34. (c) Industrial dispute- -- Holidays-Piece-rated and daily-rated workers-Entitled to weekly holidays. S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. Abdus Samad for Respondents. Date of hearing : 29th June 1977. DECISION This is an appeal against the award of the Labour Court rejecting the industrial dispute on the ground that, in view of the previous award the fresh industrial dispute was barred. 2. The Union had earlier raised an industrial dispute and since there was no settlement, the industrial dispute was taken to the Labour Court and an award dated 24th April 1976, was made. According to law the award was binding on the parties for a period of 2 years. Despite this a fresh industrial dispute was raised containing 25 demands. Since there was no settlement the Labour Court ways approached. In the Labour Court Demand No. 1, partly Demand No. 2, Demands Nos. 3 to 6, Demand No. 8, Demands Nos. 12 to 14, Demands Nos. 17 to 25 were withdrawn as it appears that the same had been agitated in the previous dispute and could not be re-agitated. However, the second part of Demand No. 2, Demands Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 were pressed by the Union. 3. The Management opposed the demands. A preliminary objection was taken that in view of the previous award fresh industrial dispute was barred. This ground found favour with the learned Presiding Officer and he dismissed the application under section 32 (L-A) of Industrial Disputes Ordinance. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. 4. I have heard the learned Representatives for the parties. Both sides have quoted certain authorities. In some…
🔒
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