Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1629 2006 SLD 1629 2006 PLC 269
Sindh High Court
Labour Revision Application No.27 of 2005, decision dated: 30-09-2005.
REHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, J

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

PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, KARACHI

VS

MUHAMMAD YASIN PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD YASIN

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)-------S. 48(3)---Suo motu revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Limitation---High Court had been given suo motu powers under revisional jurisdiction and in exercise of such powers, no time limit had been fixed---Such powers could be exercised at any time and limitation would not come in the way of the Court to examine the proceedings or orders passed by the Labour Court, provided it fostered the cause of justice---Order should not be passed to the detriment of any party without issuing notice or hearing said party. Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Abdul Malik, 1994 SCMR 833 and Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Faisal Baig, 1992 SCMR 2166 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(xiii), 35(5) & 43---Industrial dispute---Jurisdiction of Labour Court---All the terms and conditions of the employment of the workman, including the disciplinary matters comprising removal, dismissal, termination from employment of such workman, were included in the definition of 'industrial dispute'---Industrial dispute could arise; (i) between employers and employer; (ii) between employers and workmen; and (iii) between workmen and workmen---Dispute or difference had to be concerned with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person---Such dispute or difference however, would not be in respect of enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to worker by or under any law, other than Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or any award or settlement for the time being in force---Collective Bargaining Agent did not find any place in the definition of "industrial dispute" under S.2(xiii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969---Definition of "industrial despute" did not apply to dispute or difference ,between Collective Bargaining Agent and the employer---However, because of deeming provisions of S.43 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, dispute between Collective Bargaining Agent and employer had been included within definition of 'industrial dispute' provided dispute had been raised in the prescribed manner i.e. by negotiation, conciliation,…
🔒
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