| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 1556 1989 SLD 1556 1989 PLC 755 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Petition No. 7 of 1986, decided on 20th October, 1988.
SARFRAZ ARSHAD KHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER
Rana Muhammad Yaqoob for Petitioners. Deputy District Attorney for
Respondents.
Petition No. 7 of 1986, decided on 20th October, 1988.
SARFRAZ ARSHAD KHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER
Rana Muhammad Yaqoob for Petitioners. Deputy District Attorney for
Respondents.
PRESIDENT, EMPLOYEES UNION, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, (Regd.), RAHIMYARKHAN and another
VS
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PHE, BAHAWALPUR and others
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---- ---Ss. 34 & 34-A--Scope--Enforcement of individual right of workmen--Competency of C.BA. or Federation of Workers Union--Collective Bargaining Agent or Federation of Workers' Union cannot espouse cause of individual workers--Petition by Collective Bargaining Agent aiming at espousing cause of individual workers, held, was not maintainable. JUDGMENT Employees Union, Public Health Engineering, (Registered), Rahimyarkhan, through its President, Jandwada and Mutahida Labour Federation (Registered) through its General Secretary, Haji Naseer-ud-Din, the petitioners have made a joint application under sections 34, 34-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, raising an industrial dispute. The relief claimed, precisely, is that Ghulam Akbar and others workmen) as per list appended with main petition are permanent employees of respondent No. 1 and entitled to receive back benefits etc. arising thereof. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application in short are that Ghulam Akbar and others (56 in numbers), had been employed with respondent No.1 as Tubewell Drivers, Chowkidars, Plumbers and Baildars etc. for more than 9 months. It is contended further that the work assigned to them was of a permanent nature. They had become permanent workmen by virtue of S.O. 1 of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance No. VI of 1968. The petitioners, therefore, have come to this Court for the enforcement of the said right guaranteed/secured to them under law. 3. This petition has been vehemently contested by the respondents. The main contention of respondents, is that the applicants had no cause of action nor said petition had been maintainable in law. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 conducted operational functions of the Water Supply and Disposal works of respondent No. 2 and No. 3. The said workmen therefore, were the members of contingency staff. 4. The parties were called upon to substantiate their respective contentions. The applicants have examined Ghulam Akbar (P.W. 1) one of the workmen, who reiterated the facts set out in the petition. In theβ¦
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