Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1661 2000 SLD 1661 2000 PLC 483
National Industrial Relations Commission
Cases Nos. 4A(103)/24(104) of 1998 L, decision dated: 28-07-1999
NABI BAKHSH BHATTI, 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

SHEHZAD SHAHEEN SHIBLI

VS

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK through General Manager, Peshawar and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 15 & 22 A(8)(g) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln. 32 Unfair Labour practice, by employer Doctrine of res judicata Reliance on Validity Dismissal from service of employee on account of trade union activities Employee who was dismissed from service had filed petition against .his dismissal alleging that he having been elected General Secretary of Officers Union of the Bank had been victimized for his trade union activities -Petition was resisted by Bank alleging that it was barred by doctrine of "res judicata" Doctrine of res judicata was not applicable in the case of petitioner as order of dismissal from service was neither challenged earlier by petitioner before Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission nor before High Court Trade union,, earlier, had challenged transfer of employees who were victimized by the Bank on account of their trade union activities and petitioner had simply challenged show cause notice issued to him with the prayer that Bank be restrained from commission of further acts of unfair labour practice No case against dismissal from service being pending before any Court, nor same matter having been decided earlier in any proceedings, doctrine of res judicata. was not applicable to matter of petitioner as alleged by employer. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 2(xxviii) & 22 A(8)(g) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1974, Regln. 32 Workman Determination Test Petitioner/employee though was promoted in category of Officer Grade III and then Grade II, but he had no managerial or administrative function to perform as officer and was only symbolically known as officer of the Bank without having any powers of officer and was performing clerical duties Employee, in circumstances, was a "workman" Real test whether a person was a workman or not did not depend upon designation or salary, but depended only upon nature of duties Officers Grades III and II serving in Banks even otherwise were workmen. 1979 SCMR 304; 1988 SCMR 1664; 1990 PLC 142; 1992 SCIVIR 1891;…
🔒
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