Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 1703 1982 SLD 1703 1982 PLC 1100
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Petitions Nos. 512 and 513 of 1979-Pb., decided on 28th April, 1982
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, 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

GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS

VS

SABIR JAVED AND 118 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) - -- S. 49-Representation of workers before Labour Court in industrial dispute-Words "shall be entitled to" used in sub­section (1) of S. 46-Connotation-Provisions permissive and not restrictive-Representation by an office-bearer of C.B.A.-Right of workman but there is no restriction that workman cannot be represented by any other person-Office-bearer of C.B.A. other than C. B. A. of establishment in which workman employed can also represent-Controversy brought before Labour Court by grievance petition under S. 25-A though not covered by definition of "industrial dispute" to be treated as industrial dispute-Industrial dispute and grievance petition-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 2 (xiii) and 25-A. Afzal Stores v. Sind Labour Court No. 5 1977 P L C 587 and Jalal Din v. Orient Match Company Ltd. P L D 1%8 Lah. 269 rel. Sarfraz Khan for Petitioners. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi and Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondents. Agha Taj Muhammad for Railways. JUDGMENT The above captioned two revisions arise from the orders dated 6th June, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the objection of the petitioners that Mr. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi, representative of the respondents, could not appear and represent them was disallowed. Since the point involved in the two revisions is the same, they are being decided through this single judgment. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only an office-holder of C.B.A. can represent a workman and since Mr. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi is not an office-holder in any C.B.A., he is not entitled to represent the persons for whom he appeared before the Labour Court. On the other hand, the argument of Mr. Lodhi is that he was competent to represent his clients particularly when he had already filed a special power of attorney executed by his clients in his favour. Since the question involved affects many other labour representatives, who usually appear before the Labour Courts and this Tribunal, they were invited to argue the matter and besides Mr.…
🔒
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