| Citation(s) |
| 1994 SLG 300 1994 SLD 300 = 1994 PLC 476 |
National Industrial Relations Commission
Appeals Nos. 12(70) and 12(92) of 1992, decision dated:17-02-1993.
ATTAULLAH SAJJADCHAIRMAN, MAHMOOD AKHTER, SENIOR MEMBER AND MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL MEMBER
S. Qamar-ud-Din Hassan and Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Appellant (in Appeal No. 12(70) of 1992). S.P Lodhi, Representative for
Respondents (in Appeal No. 12(70) of 1992).S. Naeem Bokhari and Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Appellant (in Appeal No. 12(92) of 1992)
BOOTS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITEDvs MEMBER, N.I.R.C. BENCH, KARACHI and another
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 22
Law: National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973
Section: 32, 34
(a) Industrial dispute------ Settlement---Expiry of---Effect---Settlement arrived at between employers and employees' union having expired, parties served each other with their respective charters of demands---Employers served employees' union with notice of lock out while union served employers with notice of strike--Allegation raised on part of union that facilities and benefits of settlement were withdrawn by employers to compel union to sign another settlement according to wishes of employers, had no force because settlement between parties had already expired when notice of strike was given by Union to employers.(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-------S.22---Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.)---Determination of---Where in an establishment there were more unions than one, C.B.A. could not be determined otherwise than by holding election through secret ballot---To construe that C.BA. could be determined not by election, but by order of Court, even for a short duration, would be absurd, because following election process prescribed under S. 22(2) was condition precedent for determination of C.BA. and unless what was prescribed by law had been done in that and that manner alone, no C.BA. could be constituted---When law required something to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done in that manner alone or not at all. (c) Industrial dispute------ Temporary injunction---Grant of---Temporary injunction is a preventive remedy for purpose of preserving status quo and it must not create a totally new state of things. Gul Hassan and 2 others v. Asmatullah and 6 others PLD 1978 Quetta p.164 and Muhammad Idrees v. Collector of Customs, Karachi PLD 1971 Kar. 736 ref.(d) Industrial dispute------ Trade Union---Function of---Main function of a union in establishment is to sign a settlement the grand concord on terms and conditions of employment, between workers and employers---Settlement or grand concord of an employer with a union which did not enjoy mandate of workers, could obviously lead to industrial anarchy and strife. (e) Industrial dispute------- Interim order---Nature of---An interim order, could not be used to restore…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register