Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1983 1984 SLD 1983 1984 PLC 1645
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 155 of 1983, decided on 5th January, 1984
FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, J

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

MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS

VS

SIND LABOUR COURT No. 1, KARACHI AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- -- Ss. 15 & 53 read with National Industrial Relations Commission (Functions and Powers) Regulations 1973, Reg. 32(1) & (2) (c)­Unfair labour practice-Complaint before National Industrial Relations Commission-Competence to pass interlocutory order-Alleged unfair labour practice already occurred-Case falls under Reg. 32(1) and Commission shall not have power to issue any interlocutory order-Commission competent to pass interlocutory order envisaged by cl. (c) of Reg. 32(2) where alleged unfair labour practice yet likely to occur-Complaint of unfair labour practice alleged to have been committed by employer by dismissing workmen in order to prevent them from participating in Union's election-N. I. R. C. passing interlocutory orders allowing dis­missed workmen "to remain members of Union and to contest elections and cast vote''-Dismissal order already passed-Inter­locutory order, in circumstances, held, without jurisdiction-Fact that complaint was made before dismissal order, held, immaterial and position of unfair labour practice obtaining on date of passing interlocutory Order would be relevant for determining its validity.-[Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9]. C. P. No. 74 of 1983 and C. P. No. D-1358 of 1980 rel. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- -- Ss. 2(xxviii), 7(l) (d) & 8(7) - Workman - Term "workman" appearing in S. 7(1)(d) to be read in context or subject in which it appears viz. that -he should be a person actually engaged in establishment"--If intention of Legislature had been to use term "workman" in S. 7(I)(d) in same sense in which defined in S. 2(xxviii) then words "actually engaged in establishment" appearing after word "workmen" in S. 7(I)(d) would be redun­dant-Term "workman" defined in S. 2(xxviii) to be read subject to rider in opening sentence in S. 2 viz. "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context"-Workman dismissed in consequence of an industrial dispute though deemed to be "workman" under S. 2 (xxviii) but shall not be deemed to be a "workman actually engaged in establishment"-Workmen dis­missed from service 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