Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 698 1988 SLD 698 1988 PLC 111
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeals Nos. KAR-41 and KAR-76 of 1986, decided on 26th May, 1987
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, 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

A.E.G. EMPLOYEES UNION

VS

Messrs A.E.G. BELFUNKEN (PAKISTAN) LTD.

Law:

Section:

M. M. Jeelani for Appellants. Ismat Mehdi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th May, 1987 DECISION These are two appeals filed by A. E. G. Employees Union Karachi, one bearing No.KAR-41/86 requesting therein to the respondent management to grant substitute holidays in respect of the holidays falling on Saturday and alternatively to grant over time wages if substitute holiday; while the other is bearing No. KAR-75/86, seeking an interpretation of section 35 of the Factories Act 1934 and to see that the factory workers were entitled to weekly off with wages of without wages. As in both these appeals one and similar legal point is involved that whether the C.B.A. union is empowered to espouse the cause of individual workers under section 25-A I.R.O. 1969, or not and whether before doing so service of grievance notice upon the employer by every individual aggrieved worker is essential or not, I would, therefore, dispose of both these appeals by this single decision. 2. Both the parties did not contest the cases on merits but they had restricted themselves only on the legal point. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has passed two separate impugned orders, dated 7-1-1986 and 30-1-1986 respectively, hence, these two appeals. 3. I have heard Mr. M. M. Jeelani, the learned Advocate for the appellant unions and Mrs. Ismat Mehdi, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent management, and have carefully examined the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact that the appellant union to the collective bargaining agent of the respondent establishment and that the establishment is covered by the provisions of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. It is on record that the workers were aggrieved on account of infringement of their legal rights, therefore, they approached the appellant union to take up their grievance, either with the management or with the concerned Court of Law, as it being a Collective Bargaining Agent. Therefore, a notice was served on the management by the appellant union but it did not redress the said grievance therefore, the union filed two…
🔒
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