Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1754 2000 SLD 1754 2000 PLC 246
National Industrial Relations Commission
Cases Nos. 4 A(110) K and 24(108) of 1998 K, decision dated: 1st December 1998
AIJAZ AHMED K. SHAIKH, MEMBER

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

HAMEED UR REHMAN KHAN, ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT ACE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

VS

Messrs ASSOCIATED CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF ACE (PVT.) LTD and 2 others

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 22A(8)(g)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 22 A(8)(g) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regin. 32(2)(c) Unfair labour practice . Interim prohibitory order, grant of Petitioner/employee who had been retrenched under retrenchment policy framed by employer establishment in presence of petitioner, had alleged that he had been victimized due to his trade union activities and that act of employer establishment amounted to act of unfair labour practice of employer Employee had contended that interim prohibitory order issued in his favour restraining employer to take action against him be confirmed Employee who previously was Finance Secretary of union in employer establishment at the time of retrenchment though was an active member of union, but was not its office bearer When employee was office bearer of union, no action was taken against him due to his trade union activities Had there been any grudge with employee at that time due to his trade union activities, he would have been victimized At present when employee was simply an active member of union and not any office bearer thereof, nothing was on record to show that he had been victimized due to his trade union activities as alleged by him No other person who had been retrenched due to retrenchment policy, had approached Labour Court challenging their retrenchment as an illegal act of unfair labour practice by employer Employee having failed to prove that he had been victimized due to his trade union activities, interim prohibitory order passed in his favour was recalled. ORDER This. order will dispose of Application under Regulation 32(2)(b) (c)(d) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulation, 1973 filed by petitioner supported by his affidavit to restrain the respondents, their agents, men, servants or persons connected with them from transferring the petitioner or terminating/dismissing the petitioner from employment. It is further prayed that respondents and their men be restrained from creating nuisance and hindrance for performing his duties and further restrain them from pressuring the petitioner to resign the employment or from the union in any manner…
🔒
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