PLC 2008 Judgments - Pakistan Legal Archive

Courts in this Volume

High Court Azad Kashmir
Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employee
Islamabad
Karachi High Court Sindh
Lahore High Court Lahore
National Industrial Relations Commission
Quetta High Court Balochistan
Supreme Court

High Court Azad Kashmir

PLC 2008 HIGH COURT AZAD KASHMIR 350 #

2008 PLC 350

2008 P L C 2

[Karachi High Court]

Before Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J

ABDUL REHMAN

Versus

Messrs SMS CORUIERS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

Labour Appeal No.170 of 2005, decided on 10th October, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 47(3) & 62---Termination of service---Reinstatement---Entitlement to back benefits---Appeal to High Court---Appellant whose services were terminated, was reinstated in service by the Labour Court---Labour Court, however, instead of allowing back benefits, granted compensation to appellant equivalent to 12 months' basic pay last drawn by him---Nothing had been placed on record to show that appellant had remained in gainful employment during the intervening period viz. after termination of services till his reinstatement---Held, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to have awarded back benefits to the appellant---Impugned order was modified to the extent that instead of 12 months basic pay, appellant would be entitled to back benefits.

2003 SCMR 1772; 2000 SCMR 354; 1980 SCMR 375; 1975 SCMR 452; 2004 PTD 1957; 1997 PLC 650 and 1995 CLC 1830 rel.

PLD 1990 SC 787 and 1993 SCMR 105 ref.

Rafiullah for Appellant.

Mazhar Jafri for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 27th and 29th August, 2007.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 12 #

2008 P L C 12

[Karachi High Court]

Before Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, J

Syed MUKHTIAR SHAH

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.VII, SUKKUR and 3 others

Labour Appeal No.24 of 2006, decided on 2nd March, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 46 & 48---Termination of service---Grievance petition, competency of-Appeal to High Court---Appellant was appointed on temporary assignment and his services were terminated after about three years of his appointment---Appellant challenged his termination. in appeal before Service Tribunal---During pendency of appeal, Supreme Court pronounced judgment (PLD 2006 SC 602), whereby appeal filed before Service Tribunal was abated---Appellant thereafter served grievance notice upon the employers and filed grievance petition before Labour Court---Labour Court dismissed grievance petition on two grounds; firstly that petition was premature as appellant, after serving grievance petition, had not waited for 15 days and had filed said petition before expiry of said period of 15 days; secondly that limitation of 90 days for approaching proper forum having been fixed by Supreme Court, even after expiry of 15 days, if appellant again approached Labour Court then too his grievance petition would be time-barred---Supreme Court while directing the abatement of proceedings not covered by the judgment had allowed 90 days time to affected persons to approach the proper forum---Limitation provided under S.46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, was not applicable in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court and appellant could approach the proper Court within 90 days---Contention of counsel for appellant that only pre-condition was to serve a grievance notice, appeared to be correct---Appellant having approached the Court within 90 days as permitted by the Supreme Court his grievance petition could not be rejected on that technical ground that he had approached the Court before expiry of 15 days---Labour Court was not correct in holding that petition was premature---Order passed by the Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded for trial in accordance with law.

Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602; Managing Director, Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. v. Syed Najmul Hassan Naqvi 2002 PLC (C.S.) 896 and Pakistan National Centre through Chairman v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1085 rel.

M.A. Hakeem for Appellant.

Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Nemo for Respondent No.4.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 18 #

2008 P L C 18

[Karachi High Court]

Before Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J

Messrs PAKISTAN HERALD LIMITED through Manager Human Resources

Versus

ABRAR AHMED SIDDIQUI

Labour Appeal No.241 to 249 of 2007, decided on 30th August, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 46 & 47(3)---Sixth Wage Board Award, Para.73(i)---Appeal to High Court--Move-over, entitlement to---Grievance petition---Employees being newspaper employees, reached the maximum of pay scale in Grade-I and completed one year satisfactory service in the same cadre---Employees, in circumstances had become entitled to grant of move-over in the next grade, but their move-over was deferred for one year on the plea that performance of employees was not found to be satisfactory---Employees filed grievance petition against said deferment, which was accepted by the Labour Court, holding that they were entitled to move-over---Validity---Management not only did not issue any warning or show-cause notice to the employees regarding their alleged unsatisfactory performance, but had also issued Appreciation Letters to them, considering their performance and evaluation report and raised their salary---Under clause (i) of Para.73 of Sixth Wage Board Award, an employee after reaching the maximum stage of his pay scale and after completing one year's service, would automatically become entitled to the grant of move-over to the next higher grade provided the employer was satisfied with his performance during the said one year service---No material of any kind was available on the record to indicate that performance of employees was not satisfactory---Employees, in circumstances, were entitled to grant of move-over---Order impugned, being unexceptionable, needed no interference---Order passed by the Labour Court, was upheld and appeals being without merit were dismissed by the High Court.

Ms. Zarina Aslam for Appellants.

Faiz Ghangro for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th August, 2007.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 30 #

2008 P L C 30

[Karachi High Court]

Before Faisal Arab, J

JABEBS (PVT.) LIMITED

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. V and another

Constitutional Petition No.776 of 2004 and C.M.A. No.2503 of 2006, decided on 13th August, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----S. 62---Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Recovery of bonuses and increments etc:---Respondent, who was removed from service, filed application for reinstatement in service---Pending said application, respondent also moved application under S.62 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 for recovery of bonuses and increments etc. under the settlement that was reached between Collective Bargaining Agent and employer which settlement was for a period of three years---Recovery proceedings were resisted by employer on the ground that since settlement had expired, recovery proceedings filed for enforcing terms of expired settlement, were not enforceable in law---Interlocutory application filed by petitioner/ employer having been dismissed by the Labour Court, employer had filed constitutional petition seeking dismissal of respondent's recovery proceedings---Validity---Expeditious remedy had been provided under S.62 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 for seeking recovery claims arising from a settlement or decision of an arbitrator, a Labour Court or High Court---Respondent, was fully justified in moving application under the said section before Labour Court for recovery of his dues claimed under settlement proceedings under S.62 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 being in nature of execution proceedings, service of notice under S.46 of the Ordinance, was not necessary and application under S.62 of the Ordinance was maintainable---Contention of petitioner/employer that after expiry of period mentioned in the settlement, respondent could not seek enforcement of any of its terms was repelled, because S.62(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, provided that settlement even after its expiry would continue to remain binding on the parties until expiry of two months from the date on which either party would inform the other party in writing of its intention that it would not be bound by the settlement any more---Settlement, even after its expiry would continue to remain enforceable until a new settlement was reached at between the petitioner and its Collective Bargaining Agent.

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Petitioner.

Rafiuliah for Respondent No.2.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 36 #

2008 P L C 36

[Karachi High Court]

Before Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Mrs. Yasmeen Abbasey, J

PAKISTAN SEAMEN'S UNION

Versus

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION and others

C.P. No.D-486 of 2000.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

---Ss. 22-A(8)(d), 22-B(2)(b) & 22-B(3)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Registration of Industry-wise Trade Union---Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission after receiving application of respondent for registration of Industry-wise Trade Union, assigned the matter to Member, National Industrial Relations Commission---Subsequently on directions of the Chairman, Deputy Registrar of the Commission was directed to examine the matter---While registration of Industry-wise Trade Union was a function of the Commission in terms of S.22-A(8)(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the functions of the Commissions under S.22-B(2)(b) of the Ordinance, 'were to be performed by at least one or more members---When the law required a particular person or functionary to perform a statutory duty; and that too after hearing of parties, a decision could only have been taken by the Chairman or any other Member constituting the Bench after hearing the parties-Contention that the Registrar, Trade Unions could delegate the functions to his subordinate functionaries under S.13 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was repelled as S.13 related to the functions of the Registrar Trade Unions who was a separate entity from the Commission---Petition was allowed holding the registration to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Muhammad Tasneem for Petitioner.

Shafiq Qureshi for Respondent No.2.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 40 #

2008 P L C 40

[Karachi High Court]

Before Mushir Alam, J

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.

Versus

GHULAM MUHAMMAD MEMON Labour

Appeal No.13 of 2003, decided on 13th July, 2007.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 2(x), (xxx), 46 & 48---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(c)(i) & S.O.15---Dismissal from service---Grievance petition, maintainability of---Workman'---Relationship of employer and employee---Appeal---Respondent, who was dismissed from service, filed grievance petition against order of his dismissal---Counsel for employer-Bank had contended that grievance petition was not maintainable as respondent was not employed in the Bank as aworkman'---Validity---Respondent was posted abroad on number of occasions and he always remained under order and command of the Bank, even while posted abroad---Very fact that respondent was charge-sheeted and proceeded against by Bank, was sufficient to establish that relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties---Respondent had asserted that he was a workman' and performing manual and clerical work---Burden shifted on the Bank to prove otherwise, which burden it had failed to discharge---Question whether respondent was aworkman' or not was dealt with by the Court below---No strong reasons were available to disturb such finding of fact---Employee was rightly reinstated in circumstances.

General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others PLD 1986 SC 103; Bashir Ahmed Zia v. The Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1982 SCMR 407; M.D. Shamsul Haque and others v. Managing Director Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. and another PLD 1969 Dacca 386; Mumtaz Hassan Khan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1984 PLC 1353; 2005 PLC 130; Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41; Mujeebur Rehman Qazi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2006 PLC 24; Aliied Bank of Pakistan Limited v. Mujeebur Rehman Qazi and others SBLR 2006 SC 33; Khamiso Khan v. The Secretary and another 2007 PLC 409; National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad 1993 PLC 595; Nasir Jamal Qureshi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. and another 2005 SCMR 1049; Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah and another PLD 1991 SC 225; Fauzia Ahmed v. First Women Bank Ltd. and others 1999 SCMR 1237; Imtiaz Ahmed v. M.C.B. and others 2006 PLC 380; Warner Lambert (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Court No.III, Karachi and another 1979 PLC 370; Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another 1979 SCMR 304 and Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v: Muhammad Humayun Khan and 2 others 1983 PLC 498 rel.

(b) Criminal trial---

----Punishment, awarding of---Penalty or punishment must be inflicted commensurate with the wrong---Mercy in Islamic Jurisprudence was a rule and punishment an exception, where the wrong was trivial or committed under compelling circumstances or committed first time---Even in modern jurisprudence, doctrine of proportionality of sentence was recognized, in labour laws as well.

---S.O. 15---Misconduct---Punishment---Where the act of omission or commission of petty nature as detailed in Standing Order 15(1) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was established, the employer could either reprimand or impose fine---Where, however, misconduct as detailed in Standing Order 15(3) of the Ordinance was established, employer could inflict fine, withhold increment or promotion for a specified period not exceeding one year or reduce to a lower position or dismissal without payment of any compensation in lieu of notice---Discretion to inflict punishment would come with concomitant responsibility to act fairly, justly and equitably---Doctrine of proportionality of sentence would be applicable to the culpability of wrong or mischief---In the present case employer-Bank had imposed too severe a penalty of dismissal from service on employee, which, under facts and circumstances of the case, was not commensurate with or proportionate to the employee's culpability or gravity of alleged misconduct which was the solitary incident throughout his 16 years of unblemished service---Employee was rightly reinstated in circumstances.

Zafar v. State 1999 SCMR 2028; Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari v. Federation PLD 1999 SC 192 and Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Sufian PLD 2001 SC 465 ref.

Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Appellant.

Shabbir Awan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2007.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 52 #

2008 P L C 52

[Karachi High Court]

Before Zia Perwez, J

Messrs PAKISTAN'STEEL MILLS CORPORATION through Incharge Law

Versus

NISAR AHMED SHAR

Labour Revision Application No.61 and C.M.A. No.1439 of 2007, decided on 4th October, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

---Ss. 46 & 48(3)---Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, Ss.3 & 9---Termination of service---Grievance application---Services of employee of Government owned company were terminated after promulgation of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and employee filed appeal before Service Tribunal---Pending said appeal, Supreme Court in its judgment in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602, held that the case of the nature was beyond the scope of Service Tribunal---Employee then approached Labour Court by filing grievance application under S.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 along with interlocutory application seeking interim orders against his ejectment from the premises occupied by him---Objections as to jurisdiction were overruled by the Labour Court while assuming jurisdiction and passing the order on interlocutory application----Validity---Under provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the Prime Minister or Authority designated by him, was conferred with powers to take certain action against an employee of Government owned Corporation---Grievance against penalty imposed under S.3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, was subject to consideration and redress by way of representation under S.9 of the Ordinance---Action under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, had the effect of overriding all existing laws in force---Labour Court, while acting contrary to the findings of a Full Bench of High Court in case of Muhammad Daud v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046, had exercised jurisdiction beyond the scope of its authority---Proceedings in grievance application being without jurisdiction, were set aside along with impugned order.

Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602; Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 and Muhammad Dawood v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046 ref.

Khalid Imran Siddiqui for Applicant.

Nemo for Respondent.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 60 #

2008 P L C 60

[Karachi High Court]

Before Zia Perwez, J

ABDUL MATEEN

Versus

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No.170 of 2005, decided on 7th August, 2007.

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)---

----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application for payment of wages---Ex parte order---Setting aside of ex parte order---Notices were ordered to be issued on application under S:15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936---None having appeared, in response to such notice the service on respondent was held good by the Authority and case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte and application was allowed---When proceedings were initiated thereafter, for recovery of decretal amount against respondents, they filed application for setting aside ex parte order, which was allowed---Petitioner having filed constitutional petition against order setting aside ex parte order, Authority was required to act under the provisions of law---Any manner of discrimination was unwarranted and was not expected from public functionaries who were required to act in just and bona fide manner strictly according to law while discharging their duties, however, it would neither mean nor imply that all applications for setting aside ex parte orders should either be allowed or should be rejected---Each case was to be considered, examined and decided on its own merits after serious application of mind---No case of discrimination was made out in circumstances of distinguishable facts in the two cases---Petition was accordingly dismissed.

A. De Cruz for Petitioner.

Abdul Jabbar, A.A.-G. for the State.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 72 #

2008 P L C 72

[Karachi High Court]

Before Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, J

Messrs SAMKAR TAMEERAT (PVT.) LTD.

Versus

MUMTAZ HUSSAIN

Labour Appeal No.226 of 2004, heard on 22nd September, 2005.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 46 & 48---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4) & S.O.15---Termination of service---Reinstatement---Applicability of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Scope---Appeal to High Court---Labour Court accepting grievance petition of employee against his termination, reinstated him with all back benefits and employers had filed appeal to High Court against said reinstatement order---Employers had challenged jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable in the case as only seven workers were working in the establishment---Employee had claimed that more than 27 workers were working in the establishment, but could not prove his claim by producing any documentary evidence and also did not examine any person in that respect---Only solitary statement of employee was to the effect that more than 20 workers were working in the establishment without any supporting or corroborative piece of evidence---Employers, however had produced attendance register and salary register of their workers showing that from 1999 to 2003 only seven workers were working in their establishment; it had been thus, proved that less than 20 workers were working in the establishment---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, in circumstances was not applicable to the case---Labour Court, thus, had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the employee---Impugned judgment of the Labour Court suffered from inherent jurisdiction, which was set aside and appeal was allowed by the High Court.

Khaleeq Ahmed for Appellants. Rafiullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing; 22nd September, 2005.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 119 #

2008 P L C 119

[Karachi High Court]

Before Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ

KHAISTAN KHAN

Versus

INDUS DEYING AND OTHERS

C.P. No.D-1727 of 1996, decided on 22nd September, 2004.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Person approaching High Court must do so with clean hands.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

---Ss. 25-A & 22-A(8)(g)---Jurisdiction of Labour Court under S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and National Industrial Relations Commission under S.22-A(8)(g) thereof are intended to serve different purposes.

----S. 15(2)---"Misconduct"---Connotation---Refusal of worker to work against his post would amount to misconduct---Principles.

Suleman Habibullah for Petitioner.

Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 22nd September, 2004.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 192 #

2008 P L C 192

[Karachi High Court]

Before Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, J

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Attorney

Versus

SAFDAR ALI MEMON

Appeal No.129 of 2002, decided on 25th February, 2008.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

----Ss. 25-A & 37(3)---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.15(3)(b)---Dismissal from. service---Appeal--Respondent/employee was dismissed from service on allegation that he was indulging in the acts of misappropriation of employer Bank's funds lying in margin accounts of letters of credit and also certain instances of giving wrong credit to various account holders were reported against him---Employee filed grievance petition against order of his dismissal from service, which was allowed, order of dismissal of employee was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in service with immediate effect---Validity---Temporary embezzlement alleged against respondent/employee had been admitted by the employee before officers of the bank and he had allegedly deposited the entire amount so embezzled in order to save himself from the criminal consequences of the case as well as his officers from the charges of negligence on their part---Employer being a bank employee and entire business of the bank runs on the trust which the customers depose in a particular bank due to its reputation and honesty of its staff, it would not be proper to reinstate an officer in the service of bank against whom the charges of embezzlement had been proved in the internal enquiry of the bank---Bank management, which in the internal enquiry, had found its employee guilty of the charges made against him, should not be compelled to take back such employee in service and run the risk of some bigger embezzlement---Though certain technical points were in law which favoured the employee, but cases should be decided on merits and not on technicalities---Impugned order passed by the Labour Court was set aside---Respondent/employee having served the bank for twenty four years, instead of his dismissal or termination from service, he would be retired from service with all back-benefits---Salary of employee deposited with Nazir of the Court, should be given to him and he would be entitled to all retirement benefits.

Zubair Ahmad v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1985 Kar. 760; Liaquat Ali v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1993 PLC 109; Hotel Inter-Continental v. Bashir A. Malik PLD 1986 SC 103; N.B. of Pakistan v. PB. Labour Court No.5 1993 PLC 595; Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Habib Bank Limited 2004 PLC (C.S.) 166; Manager, Planning, Formation and Control Novartis, (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Muhammad Arif 2005 PLC 351; Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Habib Bank Limited and others 2004 SCMR 149; Abdul Rashid v. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal 1997 PLC 34; N.B.P. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1989 SCMR 861; Allied Bank Limited v. Nasir Abbas Naqvi 2007 PLC 660; Muslim Commercial Bank v. Shamsul Aulia 2007 SCMR 1617; Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Ghulam Muhammad Memon Appeal No.128 of 2002; Warner' Lambert (Pakistan) Ltd. Karachi v. Sindh Labour Court No.III, Karachi 1979 PLC 370; Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Ghulam Muhammad Memon 2008 PLC 40; Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Humayun Khan 1983 PLC 498; Mujeebur Rehman Qazi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2006 PLC 24; Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 2002 SCMR 943; Abdul Razzaq v. Ihsan Sons Ltd. 1992 PLC (Labour) 424; Lal Khan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1995 PLC 675; Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah PLD 1981 SC 225; Sarfraz v. G.M. (Lead) Pak. Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 SCMR 1352; Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Bashir Khan 2006 PLC 39; Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. M. Iqbal Sipra 2007 PLC 398; K.S.R.T.C. v. B.S. Hullikatti AIR 2001 SC 930; Khamiso Khan v. The Secretary 2007 PLC 400 and Mujeebur Rehman Qazi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2006 PLC 24 rel.

(b) Precedent---

----For following the precedents the rule was that every authority was to be seen in the light of the facts of the case and it was not necessary that the precedent in one case was applicable in another case in its totality.?

Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Appellant.

2008 P L C 274

[Karachi High Court]

Before Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, J

Messrs ECHO WEST INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.

Versus

SINDH SOCIAL SECURITY COURT NO.1 and 2 others

C.M.As. Nos.3367, 3369 and M.A. No.47 of 2007, decided on 1st April, 2008.

(a) Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)---

----S. 64(2) & (4)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Appeal---Condonation of delay---Counsel was not informed about the result of proceedings---Appeal was barred by 605 days and condonation of delay was sought on the ground that previous counsel had left the job, who did not inform the authorities about the dismissal of proceedings---Validity---Appear was hopelessly time barred and vague explanations had been given for condoning the delay in filing the appeal---High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Social Security Court---Appeal was dismissed in limine.

Civil Aviation Authority v. Providence Aviation (Pvt.) Ltd. 2000 CLC 1722; Province of Balochistan v. Muhammad Usman Khan Jogezai 1986 SCMR 2010; Muhammad Raza Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397; Wali Muhammad v. Inamul Hassan Khan 1985 SCMR 352 and Johnson & Johnson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sindh Employee's S.S.I. 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1532 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---If there is any violation of law or discrimination or misuse of discretion or commission of any arbitrary act on the part of any government functionary, such act can be challenged by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court challenging mala fides of such action.

Muhammad Aziz Khan for Appellant.

Jawad A.. Sarwana for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 280 #

2008 P L C 280

[Karachi High Court]

Before Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J

HUSSAIN SPINNING UNIT NO.2

Versus

AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES and another Constitutional

Petition No.S-322 of 2005, decided on 20th August, 2007.

(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)---

----S. 15---Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), Ss.3 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Payment of wages---Employee having died due to heart attack, son of deceased moved two applications; one under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and other under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936--Employer filed legal objection against said applications alleging that deceased workman having tendered resignation from service, no relationship of employee and employer existed between deceased and the employer and that duties performed by the deceased being of supervisory nature, he was not a "workman" and application moved by his son was not maintainable---Authority vide impugned order allowed claim of son of deceased and employer was directed to deposit amount of Group Insurance and other legal dues---Son of deceased in his affidavit in evidence had stated that deceased used to work in place of absentee workers and used to repair out of order machines and after removing fault, machines were handed over to the concerned workers; that deceased had no right to hire and fire and that his basic wages were Rs.2645---Such averments of son of deceased having remained unrebutted/unchallenged, it could safely be said that the deceased was "workman"---Employer further contended that Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed with and decide two applications moved by son of deceased under two different laws by the same order---Authority simultaneously was holding the portfolios of Commissioner for Workman's Compensation as well as the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Authority, in circumstances had disposed of both applications together---Labour laws having been enacted for the benefit of workers, in case of death of a worker questions regarding benefits like Groups Insurance, Gratuity and other legal dues were to be settled at the earliest---Widow and other legal heirs of the deceased could not be deprived of their legal dues on technical grounds---No material was placed on record to show that resignation of deceased was accepted by the employer before his death---Relationship of employee and employer, were thus existing between parties, in circumstances.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution---Scope---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was discretionary in nature and was basically meant for setting right the wrongs and to facilitate the innocents in achieving their due rights.

----Technicalities could not be allowed to create hurdles in the way of substantial justice and they were not to be interpreted to thwart the same--Heavy duty was cast upon the courts to do substantial justice and not to, deny the same on mere technicalities.

Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed for Petitioners.

Muhammad Shafique Qttreshi for Respondents.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 287 #

2008 P L C 287

[Karachi High Court]

Before Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J

PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION SOCIAL SECURITY HOUSE and 2 others

Miscellaneous Appeal No.30 of 2005, decided on 30th August, 2007.

Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)---

----Ss. 20, 59, 61 & 64---Contribution to Social Security---Exemption of---Appeal from order---Director of Social Security Institution demanded from appellant-Company, which was subsidiary of Pakistan Steel to pay sum for a period of 5 years as contributions to Institution---Appellant challenged such demand by filing complaint before the Commissioner taking the plea that as Institution had never provided any service to its employees, demand of Authority without performing its obligation was not just-Complaint of petitioner, however was dismissed and said dismissal was upheld upto Supreme Court---Once the matter having gone up to the level of Supreme Court and the matter and law point regarding payment of contribution by the appellant-Company having been maintained, same had attained finality; and. was not open to challenge before a lower forum---Such challenge would not only be improper, but would also be contemptuous in nature---Appeal being misconceived and frivolous was dismissed with costs.

Dilawar Hussain for Appellant.

Jawwad Sarwana for Respondents.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 293 #

2008 PLC 293

[Karachi High Court]

Before Mrs. Yasmeen Abbasey and Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, JJ

AL-RAI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY through General Secretary

Versus

COMMISSIONER, SINDH EMPLOYEES, SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE, KARACHI and 3 others

Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-2004 of 1998, D-165 of 2006, D-1478 of 2003 and D-3108 of 1996, decided on 25th April, 2008.

(a) Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)---

----Ss. 1(3), 2(ii) & 20---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application of Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to educational institutions---Term "establishment" in S.2(ii) of the Ordinance---Scope---Government by Notification extended the area of application of Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to the educational institutions and had called upon educational institutions to .get their employees registered under the Social Security Scheme and to submit a statement to the office of social security every month regarding the contribution scheme---Plea of counsel for petitioners was that activities as carried out in the educational institutions did not come within the purview of business, trade or manufacturing and producing any material product, but were of spiritual character just to promote the status of a society to up-bring the educational level, and as such same could not be parallel to the establishment functioning exclusively in business sector---Validity---Educational institutions though were running the institution on charitable basis, but the fact remained that' the employees of such institution and their dependants, should also be benefited and their service be secured in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury or death and for matters ancillary thereto---If an institution claimed itself running on charitable basis, it was also supposed to give security to all its employees as those also would come within the ambit of objects for which the institution was established---Term "establishment" in S.2(ii) of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, covered educational institutions within the meaning of said Ordinance.

Employees' Union, Jamia, Karachi v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh and 2 others 1981 PLC 403; Board of Governors Aitcheson College, Lahore v. Punjab Labour. Appellate Tribunal and others 2001 PLC 589; Holy Family Hospital and another v. Government of Sindh and another 1985 SCMR 593; Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 423; Don Basco High School Empress Road Lahore v. Director, Social Security and 2 others 2005 PLC 110; St. Bonaventure's Boys High Schools Tilak Incline and Qasimabad, Hyderabad through Authorized Representative and another v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Labour and Transport, Government of Sindh and 2 others 2004 PLC 381; Province of East Pakistan v. Sirajul Huq Patwari PLD 1966 SC 854 and AIR Assam 22 ref.

(b) Maxim---

----"Ejusdem generis" was not a rule of law, but was a rule of construction, which enabled a court to ascertain the intention of the legislature---Maxim ejesdem generis did not warrant the court to subvert or deflect from the legislative will by confining the operation of statute within narrower limits than intended by the law-maker.

----S. 2(ii)---"Establishment"---Definition and scope---Term "establishment" as used in S.2(ii) of Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, was not restricted to the three fields as referred therein; it included employees at all levels, they could be household servants, staff of public institution or of a private business---In the common parlance any organized set up with certain number of its employees, would be covered within the meaning of "establishment"--Word "establishment" as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, covered a large area of small or big business set up including an office, firm, industrial unit, shop or undertaking or premises in which workmen were employed for the purpose of carrying on any business, trade, manufacture, calling, services employment or occupation.

1989 PLC 969; PLD 1994 SC 738; Don Basco High School v. The Assistant Director, E.O.B.I. and others PLD 1989 SC. 128; Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 521; K.G. Old Principal, Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and 6 others PLD 1976 Lah. 1097; The Managing Committee, Attock Industrial School v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore and another 1985 PLC 936; The University of Delhi and another v. Ram Nath and others AIR 1963 SC 1873; Management of Safdar Jung Hospital, New Delhi v. Kuldip Singh Sethi AIR 1970 SC 1407; St. Bonaventure's Boys High Schools Tilak Incline and Qasimabad, Hyderabad and another v. Province of Sindh and 2 others 2004 PLC 381 and Sacred Heart High School v. Director, Social Security and others 1997 PLC 729 ref.

Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Petitioners.

Jawwad Sarwana for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2008.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 304 #

2008 P L C 304

[Karachi High Court]

Before Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J

Messrs SENTINEL (PVT.) LTD. through Resident Director

Versus

Mst. GUL FAREEN JANA and another

Constitutional Petition No.S-85 of 2007, decided on 5th May, 2008.

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.Os. 10-B & 12(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Scope---Compulsory group insurance compensation---Claim for---Dispute in case was over compulsory group insurance compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000---Applicant/widow of deceased filed application before Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for directing employers to pay the compulsory group insurance compensation to the legal heirs of deceased employee who died in road accident---Claim of applicant was denied by the employer contending that number of their employees was less than 50 and that deceased employee was not their permanent workman as he had left job before his death---Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by his impugned order held that applicant's deceased husband at the time of his death, was the employee of the employers and that employers were liable to pay the compulsory group insurance compensation to his legal heirs---Contention of the employers' that deceased was verbally discharged on his own request being violative of Standing Order 12(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was not tenable in law---Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had rightly concluded that deceased, at the time of his death, was employee of the employers and the story about his leaving the job had been falsely set up by them only to save the amount of one lac---Work of deceased, who was working as Security Guard, was of permanent nature likely to last for more than-nine months, in such circumstances, it was clearly established that deceased, at the time of his death, was permanent workman of the employer---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction regarding findings of facts given by a competent forum was very. limited---Findings of Commissioner for Compensation, being based upon evidence and reason, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Question of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence could not be gone into nor re-appraisement of evidence could be undertaken at this stage---Findings as well as the order of Commissioner for Compensation being unexceptionable, could not be questioned in constitutional jurisdiction.

Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi v. Shah Azmat 1994 PLC 626 ref.

(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Arts. 122 & 129---Burden of proving a fact---Article 122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided that the burden of proving a fact, specially within the knowledge of any person was upon that person and according to illustration (g) of Art.129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the court could presume that evidence which could be produced but was not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withheld the same.

Shanker Rao and others v. Kamtaprasad Goindprasad Agarwal and others AIR (34) 1947 Nag. 129 ref.

Muhammad Humayun for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ali Abbasi for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing; 28th March, 2008.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 312 #

2008 PLC 312

[Karachi High Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, J

Messrs JAVEDAN CEMENT LIMITED

Versus

DIRECTOR, S.I.T.E. (WEST) DIRECTORATE SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI and 2 others

M. Appeal No.9 and C.M.A. No.1582 of 2006, decided on 30th May, 2008.

Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)---

----S. 64---Appeal against order of a Social Security Court---Maintainability---Appeal was objected to on the ground that it was not filed by an authorized person---Appeal on behalf of the appellant company had been signed and verified by Manager (Admn.) of the company, however nowhere it was mentioned as to how and in what manner the Manager (Admn.) became legally authorized to initiate the proceedings---Copy of resolution placed on record had revealed that Managing Director of the company had himself given authority to Manager (Admn.) of the company to initiate proceedings---Nowhere it had been disclosed/mentioned that how the Managing Director could exercise power of delegation of authority on behalf of the company to Manager (Admn.) unless he. was so empowered by the Articles of Association of the Company; or there was some Resolution of the Board of Directors in his favour for that purpose with further power of delegation of power on behalf of the company---Mere titling a piece of paper as resolution did not fulfil the requirement of law---Resolution should contain that a meeting of the Directors was duly convened on a specific date wherein the Board of Directors unanimously resolved to confer authority/power on a Director or an officer or Secretary of a company in pursuance of resolution of the Board of Directors---No such particulars found mention in the resolution filed in the petition---When a company was instituting legal proceedings in a court of law, it had to be instituted competently and authorizedly---Appeal having been incompetently filed, being not maintainable, was dismissed by High Court.

Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. PLD 1971 SC 550; Abdul Rehman and 2 others v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar. 62 and National Insurance Corporation and others v. Pakistan National Corporation and others 2006 CLD 85 ref.

Muhammad Humayun for Appellants.

Jawwad Sarwana for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 316 #

2008 P L C 316

[Karachi High Court]

Before Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, J

A&B BEVERAGES LTD. SHAMA LABOUR UNION through President

Versus

REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and another

Constitutional Petition No.S-571 of 2000, decided on 21st April, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

----S. 11(b)---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.11-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Deregistration of trade union and termination of employees by employer-Company---Validity---Employer-Company having closed its business was nonexistent---Question whether the permission of closure of Company under S.O.11-A, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was legal or not was not material in circumstances, as the fact remained that company no more existed and whereabouts of the owners were not known--Entire cause of action had become infructuous---Company being not in existence, any order passed by High Court shall not be executable; courts do not pass such order, which could not be executed---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Shehenshah Hussain for Petitioner.

Gohar Iqbal for Respondent No. 1.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 324 #

2008 PLC 324

[Karachi High Court]

Before S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, M.C.B. BANK LIMITED and 3 others

Versus

JAVAID HUSSAIN NAQI

First Appeal from Order No.129-L of 2007, decided on 30th May, 2008.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

----S. 2(xxviii)-"Worker" and "workman", status of---Proof---Inquiry would be needed to determine status of an employee to be a "workman" or not.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

----Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25-A---Dismissal from service---Branch Manager of Bank---Grievance petition---Jurisdiction of Labour Court---Scope---Such employee, when charge-sheeted, was Branch Manager and had occupied supervisory post, thus, was not covered by definition of "workman"---Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition of such employee, who might avail remedy before appropriate forum---Grievance petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2007 PLC 41 rel.

Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Muhammad Anwar Awan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th May, 2008.

PLC 2008 KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH 385 #

2008 PLC 385

[Karachi High Court]

2008 P L C 161

[Lahore High Court]

Before Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J

UNIVERSITY OF FAISALABAD through Authorised Representative

Versus

REGIONAL HEAD FAISALABAD NORTH REGION, EMPLOYEES' OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION, FAISALABAD

Writ Petition No.10938 of 2006, decided on 22nd October, 2007.

Employees Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)---

----Ss. 2(bb) & 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Registration of. establishment with Old Age Benefits Institution---Respondent served upon petitioner notice to get itself registered with Institution, which petition declined on the ground that Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, had no application to the Educational Institutions---Petitioner, had called in question the impugned notice on two fold grounds; firstly, that educational institutions being not involved in gain, did not fall within the definition of "Industry"; secondly that teaching institutions did not fall within the definition of "Industry"---Validity---School/institution, even though not maintained for profit or gain, fell within the purview of the provisions of Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976---Provisions of said Act when were applicable to the educational institution, applicability of its provisions could not be escaped by resorting to definition of "workman", which had no relevance to the case---"Teacher" fell within the meaning of employee as defined in S.2(bb) of Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976---Questions raised in the constitutional petition were contrary to the directions laid down by Supreme Court in case reported as PLD 1989 SC 128---Petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal before the Board of Trustees of the Institution---Remedy of appeal being adequate, constitutional petition, held was not competent.

Don Basco High School v. Assistant Director EOBI and others PLD 1989 SC 128; Board of Governors Aitchison College, Lahore v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 2001 PLC 589; Messrs Rupali Polyester Ltd. v. Employees Old Age Benefits Institution and another 1991 PLC 318; Dean Children Dress Co. v. Employees' Old Age Benefits Institution and others 1994 PLC 5,45 and Dadabhoy Investments (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi v. Privatization Commission through Director-General, Islamabad and 2 others PLD 2006 Kar. 437 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Petitioner.

Kashif Ali Chaudhry for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd, October, 2007.

PLC 2008 LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 184 #

2008 P L C 184

[Lahore High Court]

Before Saghir Ahmad, J

BASHIR AHMAD REHMANI

Versus

PAKISTAN RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE through General Manager and another

Labour Appeal No.25 of 2007, decided on 29th January, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 1(4)(a)(b), 46 & 47(3)---Return of grievance petition for lack of jurisdiction---Appeal---Appellant had assailed the order of Labour Court, whereby his grievance petition was returned for lack of jurisdiction to entertain said petition, with an observation that appellant would be at liberty to seek remedy, if available in accordance with law---Ministry of Railways vide two notifications, had classified all railway lines as Ministry of Defence Lines, thereby excluding all the employees of Pakistan Railways to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court---Appellant also being an ex-employee of Pakistan Railways was governed by its statutory rules---Only remedy for appellant was to invoke .jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal---Labour Court, in circumstances was right in not invoking the jurisdiction as appellant being ex-employee of Pakistan Railways and connected with Ministry of Defence Lines, was civil servant and only remedy available to him was to invoke jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal.

Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1332; Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi v. National Industrial Relations Commission through Chairman and 2 others 1997 PLC 207 and Altaf Hussain v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others NLR 2002 Lahore 83 and C.Ps. Nos.720 to 730 of 2006 rel.

Mukhtar Ahmad Malik for Appellant.

Sh. Raees Ahmad for Respondents.

2008 P L C 302

[Lahore High Court]

Before Saif-ur-Rehman, J

SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others

Versus

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR

First Appeals from Order Nos.18/L to 25-L of 2007, decided on 12th March, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss: 46 & 48---Regularization of service---Grievance petition---Appeal to High Court---Employees had claimed that they had been working on work charge basis under appellants/employers under different categories continuously for not less than five years without any break with unblemished record---Employees demanded regularization of their services, which was denied and they approached Labour Court---Prayer of the employees was granted by the Labour Court which had been assailed by employer through appeals before the High Court---Validity---No ground specifically was raised in the memo of appeals to show that any finding of Labour Court was against the facts---Grounds urged in the appeal were of stereotype---Government offices maintain full record of employment of the employees working even on work charge basis---Employees discharged the initial onus of proof of employment and continuity of their service and it was for employers to prove that claim of employees was false supported by the relevant law---Identical questions of law being involved regarding the factual position and no specific example had been mentioned in the memo of appeal as to how and what prejudice was caused to employers, their appeals were dismissed.

Muhammad Qasim Khan for Appellants.

2008 PLC 327

[Lahore High Court]

Before Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J

WAHEED AHMED

Versus

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others

Writ Petition No.9674 of 2007, decided on 7th May, 2008.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Service matter---Case related to controversial facts i.e. whether petitioner performed his duties with the employer Authority from the years 1991 to 1999 and whether similarly placed persons were accommodated by the Authority for regularization of their service and petitioner was being discriminated---High Court, in the interest of justice, referred the case to the Director-General of the Authority, with a direction to depute a responsible officer to examine the contentions of the petitioner; and if it was found that his colleagues, who were at par with him had been benefited on the strength of directions of National Industrial Relations Commission, then the petitioner should not be dragged into litigation, and he should also be allowed the same benefit which was granted to the similarly placed persons.

Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.

Qamar-uz-Zaman for Respondents.

PLC 2008 LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 359 #

2008 P L C 359

[Lahore High Court]

Before Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J

Messrs MAP RICE MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Authorized Signatories

Versus

MURTAZA SHAH and another Labour

Appeal No.99 of 2008, decided on 2nd July, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 46 & 48---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, (VI of 1968), S.O.12---Termination of service---Grievance petition-Appeal-Services of employee having been terminated by the employer company, employee filed grievance petition against termination order---No one having appeared before the Labour Court on behalf of the Company, despite seven opportunities were provided to it, Labour Court closed the evidence---Grievance petition filed by the employee was accepted and he was reinstated in service with all back benefits---Company filed appeal against impugned judgment of the Labour Court, alleging that Labour Court had decided. the disputed question of fact without recording the evidence, culminating into the impugned order; a nullity in the eye of law---Counsel for the employee had offered that if the Company implemented the impugned judgment of the Labour Court, he was ready to wave his right 50% of arrears despite that his grievance petition was accepted with all back benefits---In view of offer of employee for waiving of his back benefits claim to the extent of 50%, High Court declined to interfere in the impugned controversy and appeal was dismissed--Company would implement the judgment of the Labour Court in letter and spirit-Employee, however would be entitled for the back benefit to the extent of 50%.

Hafeez Shah v. United Bank Limited 2001 PLC 489; 1982 PLC 128; 1986 PLC 822; 2000 PLC 579 and 1997 PLC 261 rel.

Abdul Hameed Chohan for Appellant.

Hafiz Asadullah Awan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2008.

PLC 2008 LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 362 #

2008 P L C 362

[Lahore High Court]

Before Hafiz Tariq Nasim, J

CHIEF ENGINEER (RESEARCH ZONE), IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE

Versus

SENIOR MEMBER, NIRC, ISLAMABAD, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and others

Writ Petition No.6282 of 2008, heard on 2nd July, 2008.

Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)---

----Ss. 13(5), 16, 17 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Compulsory retirement---Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission---Employer having served show-cause notice to respondents (employees) under provisions of Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, respondents filed petition under Ss.49(4)(e) & 63 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before National Industrial Relations Commission, which had passed an interim order---On adjourned date of hearing, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed by the employer upon employees in exercise of powers under S.13(5) of the Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---Petitioner had assailed, interim order passed by National Industrial Relations Commission praying that said interim order of the Commission be declared as without jurisdiction and all subsequent orders recorded by Commission be set aside being without lawful authority---Employees being Provincial Government servants, could be proceeded against under the Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---If employees felt aggrieved of any action of the employer/Authority under the provisions of Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, they could not invoke the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission, which was not meant for those controversies---Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, could not exercise its jurisdiction by entertaining employer's petition and then issuing any interim order---Commission having exceeded its jurisdiction, impugned order passed by Commission, was declared to be void, illegal having no legal effect---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act Gujranwala and 57 others PLD 2002 SC 452; Shabbir Jan Sarhandi v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 3 others 2006 PLC (C.S.) 955; Mst. Mubarak Salman and others v. The State PLD 2006 Kar. 678; Kashmir Edible Oils Limited through Manager Administration v. Nadeem Bari and another 2005 PLC 412; Jehandad and 2 others v. State and another PLD 2006 SC 270; Bakhtawar and others v. Amin and others 1980. SCMR 89; Din Muhammad and 2 others v. Abdul Rehman Khan 1992 SCMR 127; Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari PLD 1997 SC 351 and Jamil Ahmad Sheikh and another v. District Officer (Revenue), Kasur and 3 others PLD 2006 Lah. 597 rel.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Khalid Farooq for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2008.

2008 P L C 22

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Member

Haji GHULAM MAQSOOD, GENERAL SECRETARY, PAKISTAN OEC STAFF UNION, ISLAMABAD

Versus

OEC, ISLAMABAD

Case No.4A(24) of 2007, decided on 11th June, 2007.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 10 & 49(4)(e)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations,. 1973, Regln.32(2)---Unfair labour practice by employers---Transfer---Interim order---Interim, order given in the absence of the other party would remain in operation unless it was recalled or the petition was disposed of after hearing the parties or disposed of after providing them sufficient chance of being heard---Contention that transfer being part of terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter which was accepted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment, such act covered by the principle of estoppel and he could not agitate the matter, was repelled---Terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of Labour Laws, were subject to change as a result of collective bargaining and even otherwise, application of the principle of estoppel could not be applied to the grievance of the employee regarding frequent transfer or transfer on account of mala fides and unfair deal with the employee.

PLD 1995 SC 530; 1983 PLC (C.S.) 157; 1997 PLC (C.S.) 940 and PLD 1992 Kar. 65 ref.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 10 & 49(4)(e)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)---Unfair labour practice by the employer---Transfer order---Status quo, grant of---Transfer order in the case stood implemented as soon as it was received by the petitioner, who was under no exception in matter of transfer---Transfer of petitioner, could have been prejudiced, if the application for registration of his union was pending before the Registrar of Trade Unions under S.10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, or negotiations were pending with the management in the industrial dispute raised within the meaning of said law---Counsel for petitioner had admitted that case of petitioner was not that of an industrial dispute---Restraining the management from transferring-the petitioner, was not according to law---Order of transfer having been received by the petitioner, same stood implemented---Status quo granted in the matter, was recalled, in circumstances---Petition being based on the allegation of unfair labour practice, National Industrial Relations Commission, had jurisdiction to determine the same.

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner.

Muhammad Akram for Respondent.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 47 #

2008 P L C 47

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Member

ALL PAKISTAN OPF EMPLOYEES UNION through General Secretary

Versus

OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS FOUNDATION through Managing Director

Case No.7A(35) of 2007/24(60) of 2007, decided on 3rd December, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 33, 44, 46, 49(4)(e) & 50(3)(a)(b)---Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission---National Industrial Relations Commission, could not act as Labour Court under S.50(3)(a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 in the absence of the allegation of unfair labour practice---Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission was limited to the cases. of unfair labour practice; and the Commission for the purpose of enforcement of, or for the redress of individual grievances in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to any employer or worker by or under any law or any award or settlement, would not have wide jurisdiction like that of Labour Court as spelled out in S.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002; but would deal with cases of unfair labour practice only in the manner laid down in S.46 or 33 as envisaged in S.49(4)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---Section 49(4)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 only had given powers of Labour Court to National Industrial Relations Commission with regard to unfair labour practice and not about the jurisdiction---National Industrial Relations Commission, in circumstances, for the purpose of S.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, would not step into the shoes of Labour Court established under S.44 of the Ordinance---Petition under. S.33 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, did not allege any unfair labour practice on the part of the employer---Matter in circumstances did not fall within the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission---Petition by Union under S.33 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of Commission.

2006 PLC 404 and 1992 SCMR 36 rel.

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner.

Irfan Farooq, Law Officer for Respondent.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 63 #

2008 P L C 63

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Member

ALLIED BANK WORKERS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (REGD.), CBA, ISLAMABAD

Versus

PRESIDENT ALLIED BANK LIMITED

Case No.9(03) of 2006, decided on 30th November, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 25, 45, 50 & 56---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11--`Recourse to resolve industrial dispute---Petitioner/Bank Workers Federation which was C.B.A. filed case against Bank raising industrial dispute in form of application under S.56 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and Regln.17 of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973---Counsel for Bank filed application under S.45(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 challenging application filed by Bank Workers Federation on the ground that same was misconceived---Further contention of the Bank was that application had been filed by petitioner Federation for adjudication of the industrial dispute without complying with requirements as laid down in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---Validity---Normal recourse to resolve an industrial dispute had been institutionalized in sections 25 to 32 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which had set out the stages, such as bilateral negotiation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication---All said stages were various links of the system of collective bargaining---Basic reliance in that system was on bilateralism with clear-cut objective in view, was to promote trust relationship between two sides of industry i.e. employers and workers or their respective bodies created according to the system by the law of industrial relations---If at any stage in that institutionalized procedure an industrial dispute, after same had been raised, had not been resolved due to inaction of or by an indifferent attitude of any party the dispute would be construed to be pending--Industrial dispute raised by petitioner Federation which was certified C.B.A. by the Registrar of Industry-wise Trade Union would continue to be pending, in circumstances, when effort of conciliator had not been successful to bring the parties across the negotiation table for the purpose of dialogue---Points raised by the Bank in application challenging case of petitioner, were of technical and procedural nature that rendered no help to the court to meet the ends of substantial justice---Order VII, R.11, C.P.C. on the strength of which it had been prayed to dismiss petition of the Bank Federation, did not seem to apply to the case as there was a very genuine cause of action for the petitioner---Application filed by Bank was declined with direction to proceed with the main case.

AIR 1941 Pat. 41 and PLD 1995 Kar. 59 rel.

2004 PLC (C.S.) 1014 ref.

Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.

Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Respondent.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 96 #

2008 P L C 96

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Ghulam Nauman Shaikh, Member

GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER WORKERS' UNION, CBA, through General Secretary

Versus

THE GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD, through Managing Director/Occupier

Case No.4A(47)/2007-K=24(64)/2007-K, decided on 2nd August, 2007.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----S. 2(x)---Workers employed by the contractor---Contractor or an establishment of a contractor had also been included as an employer in clause (x) of S.2 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---Right to employ labour by contractor was recognized, being a separate and independent entity and Management would not be responsible for such labour---Workers employed by the contractor were not under the contract of service of the employer and the contractor was at liberty to select any set of workers for the completion of his own contract---Necessary consequence would be that the workers were the appointees of the contractor and it was his responsibility to take work from them, to pay them their wages accordingly to keep a control on them, to remove them or to deal with them in any manner---Such workers would be answerable to the contractor alone and not to the employer for whom the contractor was carrying on work---Such workers, having no contract of service with the employer, could not be deemed to be his "employees".

1984 PLC 1359; 1993 PLC 937; PLJ 2006 Lah. 1053; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar Dayal and another 1961 PLC 555; 1992 SCMR 36; Sindh Alkalis Ltd., Karachi v. Worker Union and another PLD 1979 Kar. 473; 2002 PLC 274; Malik Nazar Hussain v. National Bank of Pakistan and another 2004 SCMR 28; Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1974 PLC 194; 1961 PLC 1033; Saeed Ahmad Qazi and another v. National Industrial Relations Commission and another 1984 PLC 397; Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission and 4 others 1984 PLC 1342; National Bank of Pakistan v. Senior Member, NIRC and another 1986 PLC 985; Dr. Aijaz Hussain Qureshi v. National Industrial Relations Commission and 2 others PLD 1976 Lah. 611; Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257; Fauji Sugar Mills through General Manager v. Mehmood Ahmed 2006 PLC. 630; Abdullah Butt v. S.H. Muzaffar Zaidi 1977 PLC 212; 1991 PLC 876; 2004 PLC 209; 2005 PLC 88 and Farid Ahmed v. Pakistan Burmah shell Limited 1987 SCMR 1463 ref.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 2(x)(xxx) & 49(4)(e)---Unfair labour practice by the employer---Relationship of employer and workman---Relationship of employment with the disputed workers having been denied by employer, onus to prove and to establish employment relationship of disputed workers with the employer-Establishment was on the employees union---No document relating to employment had been produced to establish their employment relationship with the employer---Even none of said workers had filed his affidavit to substantiate said claim of the employees union---Neither it was mentioned in the petition nor in affidavit-in-rejoinder that when employer did not issue appointment letters, service identity cards, gate passes, social security institution cards and employees old age benefit cards to the said workers, how the union could base its petition on general and vague allegations without producing documents to establish employment relationship of said workers.

Alamgir and 2 others v. Messrs Dada Bhoy Silk Mills Ltd. and others 1997 PLC 13 ref.

---Ss. 2(x) (xxx), 49(4)(e) & 63---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)---Unfair labour practice on part of employer---Relationship of employers and employees---Interim relief, grant of---Interim prohibitory relief of general nature was sought by the union to restrain the employer from transferring, removing, retrenching, dismissing workers from employment, which could cause great hardship and inconvenience to employer---Union neither had a prima facie case nor balance of convenience lay in favour of interim relief---Even otherwise grant of interim relief against any action mentioned in S.63(1)(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was subject to pendency of an Industrial dispute, which neither had been raised, in prescribed manner nor was pending---Grant of interim relief, in circumstances was barred under proviso to clause (e) of subsection (4) of S.49 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---Union having failed to prove relationship of employer and employees, grant of interim relief would amount to induct the workers in employment of employer without the union and the said workers to have established their employment relationship with employer, which would not be legal approach---Until persons establish their employment relationship with the employer, they could not become members of employees union---Act of unfair labour practice, if any, already committed, could not be prevented under Regln.32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 as said provision could be invoked when an unfair labour practice was likely to be committed---Employees Union had not been able to make out a prima facie case and balance of convenience also did not lie in favour of union to grant interim relief---Application for grant of interim relief was dismissed in circumstances.

2007 PLC 133; Messrs Ramzan Ali & Co. Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Mirpurkhas v. General Secretary Employees Union and another 1996 PLC 311 and Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 3 others v. Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission and 4 others 1984 PLC 1342 ref.

(d) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 49(4)(e) & 63---Unfair labour practice---To give charge-sheet and initiate disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent worker was a statutory right of the employer, which could not be curbed or termed as unfair labour practice---National Industrial Relations Commission had no general jurisdiction, but was vested with jurisdiction, if the worker had been made victim of unfair labour practice in accordance with the provisions of S.63 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could be determined after evidence of the parties was recorded.

PLD 1988 SC 53; 2004 SCMR 28; 2004 PLC 209 and 2005 PLC 88 ref.

Shafique Qureshi for Petitioner.

Mehmood Abdul Ghani for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 125 #

2008 P L C 125

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Ghulam Nauman Shaikh, Member

KHALIQUE AHMED

Versus

Messrs JOHN & PHILLIPS (PAKISTAN) LTD.

Cases Nos.4A(94) and 24(111) of 2005-K, decided on 26th June, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----S. 49(4)(e)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)---Unfair labour practice by the employers---Interim stay order---Petitioners, who claimed to be the employees of the establishment, had filed petition under S.49(4)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 against certain alleged unfair labour practices by the establishment Petitioners had also filed application for interim stay order, which application was accepted and establishment was restrained from dismissing, terminating or taking any adverse action against the petitioners---Establishment raised preliminary legal objections that there was no employment relationship between the petitioners and the establishment, as such petitioners had no locus standi to file petition against it and further claimed that petitioners were engaged and employed by the contractor, who had removed petitioners from service---Petitioners who claimed to be employed in the establishment as permanent workmen since last 2 to 5 years, had failed to mention specific date of said appointment in the petition---Neither appointment letter nor any document relating to alleged appointment with the establishment had been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim---Establishment had categorically denied that the petitioners were employed by it---Petitioners had also failed to produce substantial evidence to establish allegations against the establishment---Petitioners did not have prima facie case of unfair labour practice and other two essential elements, namely balance of convenience/ inconvenience and irreparable injury were also lacking in favour of the petitioners for grant of interim relief---Application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, was dismissed and interim prohibitory order, was recalled.

2006 PLC 450; 1988 TD (Labour) 31 (sic); 1993 PLC 937; 2005 SCMR 100; AIR 1978 SC 1410; 2005 PLC 466; PECHA Pakistan Limited, Karachi v. Abdul Ghaffar Virani and 2 others 1993 PLC 2; Sea Gul Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 2002 PLC 212; Alamgir and others v. Messrs Dada Bhoy Silk Mills Ltd. and others 1997 PLC 13 and Muhammad Rasheed v. Presiding Officer and 2 others 2003 PLC 76 rel.

M.A.K. Azmati for Petitioner.

Mehboob Razvi for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 131 #

2008 PLC 131

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Raja Abdullah Khan, Member

SARDAR AURANGZEB

Versus

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through President

Case No.4A(02) of 2007, decided on 15th January, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 20(13), 33 & 49(4)(e)---Unfair labour practice by the employer---Petition against---Maintainability---Petition under S.49(4)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 could be filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent as required under Ss.20(13) and 33 of the Ordinance, whereas petitioner who was permanent employee of the establishment and Trade Unionist, had filed said petition in his personal capacity---Validity---Under S.33 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 such petition could be moved by the petitioner before the Labour Court, but not before the National Industrial Relations Commission which would have jurisdiction if elements of unfair labour practice were specified in the petition as provided in Ss.63 & 64 of the Ordinance, but no such unfair labour practice on the part of the employers had been indicated in the petition---Counsel for petitioner had admitted during the course of arguments that no discrimination regarding the pay and other terms and conditions had been made by the establishment in respect of other transferred employees like the petitioner---Counsel for the petitioner having admitted that no discrimination had been made by the employers in the terms and conditions of the petitioner and no specific allegation of unfair labour practice having been made in the petition, petition filed by the petitioner, in circumstances was not maintainable.

Amjad Mehmood v. Zonal Head, U.B.L. Zonal Office, Jhelum and 2 others 2001 PLC 702; Amir Baz and 3 others v. S. N. G. P. L. 1999 PLC 49 and Khizar Hayat and 4 others v H.B.L. Limited through its President Head Office, I.I. Chundrigar Road Habib Bank Plaza, Karachi 2000 PLC 492 rel.

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Gujar for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 136 #

2008 P L C 136

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Ghulam Nauman Shaikh, Member

SYEDA JAN

Versus

Messrs LUCKY TEXTILE MILLS and others

Cases Nos.4A(91) and 24(105) of 2006-K and Miscellaneous Application No.24(24) of 2007-K, decided on 9th April, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----S. 49(4)(e)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)---Unfair labour practice by the employers---National Industrial Relations Commission passed interim order restraining employers from terminating, removing or transferring the petitioner to far-flung area or taking any adverse action regarding the employment of the petitioner---Employers issued impugned letter captioned as "Re-assignment of job profile" and transferred petitioner from work of production as Beam Fixer to security work---Petitioner challenged said order alleging . same as illegal, unlawful, mala fide, unfair labour practice on the part of the employers and passed in violation of the stay order---Validity---Impugned letter had been issued by the employers purely on administrative reasons and it was not in violation of interim/stay order as petitioner had been re-assigned his job profile in the same factory and re-designated to supervise area near the gate; it was prerogative of the employers to assign duties to the workers and the petitioner could not dictate the employers about assignment of work, duties and posting---Petitioner had not been transferred and posted to, any far-flung area---If the petitioner had no previous experience of the re-assignment of job profile, employers could impart experience to the petitioner, on request made by the petitioner---Petitioner had no prima facie case so as to suspend operation of impugned letter---Application filed by petitioner under Regln.32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, was dismissed.

1982 PLC 674; 1979 PLC 492; 1988 PLC 923; 1994 PLC 470; 2001 PLC 190; 1994 PLC 306 and 2001 PLC 186 rel.

M.A.K. Azmati for Petitioner.

Mahboob Rizvi for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 142 #

2008 P L C 142

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Justice (Retd.) Rashid Aziz Khan, Chairman, Raja Abdullah Khan and M. Shabbir Jamal, Members

PNSC WORKMAN UNION (C.B.A.) and 2 others

Versus

PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION

Case No.12(10) of 2007, decided on 31st October, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 2(XXX) & 50---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)---Status of workman---Determination of---Appeal had been directed against order of Chairman/R.I.T.U. whereby he directed that workmen/office bearers of the union after their promotion to post of Junior Executive would cease to be "workmen" and could not remain members/office-bearers of the union---Validity---Only the nature of work actually done by an employee would determine his status as workman and not the designation---Duties which were being performed by said officials of the union after their promotion from Grade-VII (Senior Assistant) to Grade-IX (Junior Executive) had clearly shown that said officials were not doing clerical or manual work, but they were performing those duties in Supervisory/Managerial capacity---Said officials had to apply their independent mind and discretion in the discharge of those duties---Employees were even authorized to grant leave and also loan facilities to workshop employees---Nothing was on record to show that said officials were doing those duties prior to their promotion---Terms-and conditions of said employees had also been changed after promotion---Employees were not contributing to the workers' funds .as members of workers union, but they were contributing towards the officers union fund-Chairman/R.I.T.U., while giving cogent reasons, had rightly allowed the application of Management for the exclusion of said officials from the list of office-bearers of the union---No exception could be taken to the impugned order which was well discussed and well reasoned and same was maintained.

2007 PLC 287; 2007 PLC 75; 2007 PLC 83; 2001 PLC (SC) 691; 1994 PLC (SC) 211; 2001 PLC (Lab.) 319; 1993 SCMR 511; PLD 1988 SC 1988; 1977 PLC 246; 2002 PLC 1; 1993 SCMR 1370; 2007 PLC 41 and PLD 1992 SC 118 ref.

Malik Muhammad Rafique for Appellants.

Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 147 #

2008 P L C 147

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Justice (Rtd.) Rashid Aziz Khan, Chairman, Raja Abdullah Khan and

Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Members

GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER WORKERS UNION through General Secretary

Versus

GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI and another

Appeal No.12(21) of 2007-K, decided on 13th November, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 49(4)(e) & 52---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)---Unfair labour practice by employer---Interim relief---Appeal to National Industrial Relations Commission---Appeal had been directed against order of Member, NIRC whereby he dismissed the stay application of appellant-union against Management---Management had denied relationship of employer and employee between disputed workers---Appellant union had failed to produce any appointment letter or any other document to prove that said disputed workers had been appointed by the management and that they were paid by it---Question whether relationship of employer and employees existed between those disputed workers and the management, would be decided after the parties would lead evidence---Appellant union had neither a prima facie case nor balance of convenience lay on its side nor would it suffer irreparable loss if the stay was refused; on the other hand, if stay was granted to appellant union, it would amount to induct those disputed workers in the employment of management which would suffer an irreparable loss if said workers were thrust upon it and Management would be greatly inconvenienced in that way---No Industrial dispute being pending, the interim relief could not be granted to appellant union---Application for interim relief was rightly rejected by Member, NIRC for cogent reasons---No exception could be taken to impugned order, which was well-reasoned---Said order was upheld and appeal was dismissed having no merits at all.

2002 PLC 274 ref.

Muhammad Shafique Qureshi for Appellant.

Faisal Mehmood Ghani for Respondents.

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Intervener.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 158 #

2008 P L C 158

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Ghulam Nauman Shaikh, Member

MUHAMMAD JAMIL and 2 others

Versus

Messrs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI through Chief Executive

Case No.4A(63) of 2007-K/24(88) of 2007-K, decided on 29th November, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

---Ss. 10 & 49(4)(c) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)---Unfair labour practice by employer---Protection against transfer, discharge or dismissal from service---Scope---Petitioners/applicants though were employed on contract in the establishment since 1999 without any break, but they were simply the members of trade union in the establishment---Only office-bearers of the union pending registration of union were entitled for protection under S.10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 of their dismissal, termination or transfer and not the members of the union---Petitioners being not office-bearers of the union, were not entitled to protection under S.10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002; they could not seek interim relief as prayed for by them under Regulation 32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973.

2007 PLC 133; 2001 PLC 135; 1987 PLC 340; 2005 PLC 88; 2002 PLC 87; 2003 TD (Labour) 411; 2001 PLC 712; 1987 PLC 547 and 2005 PLC 327 rel.

Muhammad Khurshid Representative for Petitioners.

Faisal Mahmood Ghani for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 172 #

2008 P L C 172

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Raja Abdullah Khan, Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Members and Wamiq Javed, Joint Secretary (Law)

BALOCHISTAN ENGINEERING WORKS WORKERS' UNION (UNIT DCL) through General Secretary/Finance Secretary

Versus

MEHANATKASH UNION BALOCHISTAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. through General Secretary/President and 8 others

Appeal No.12(24) of 2007, decided on 22nd January, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

---Ss. 2(xi), 52, 54 & 78---Determination of Collective Bargaining Unit---Appeal to National Industrial Relations Commission---Registrar while determining one or more Collective Bargaining Units in an establishment or group of establishments, would look into the distribution of workers, existing boundaries of the components of such establishment or group of establishments; facilities of communication; general convenience; sameness or similarity of economic activity and other cognate factors---In the present case amalgamation of four companies into one, had led' to unification of business resulting in sameness of character and harmonious approach---Establishment of one company as an employer of the entire establishment with common balance sheet and profit and loss accounts, was co-extensive with definition of `establishment' in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---As soon as an industry-wise union came into existence, it had done a wise thing that it applied for the declaration of one Collective Bargaining Unit, whereby the entire establishment would have one Collective Bargaining Agent which would help uniform improvement of employment conditions of workers and irresistible coherent rise in their standard of living and would be beneficial in uniting workforce of the entire establishment, thereby overcoming irritants and inter unions' rivalries---Business having been unified, there would be more concentration of the company on better conditions of work of employees as administrative expenditure would be minimized---Chairman/Registrar Industry-wise Trade Union was right to order that declaration of one Collective Bargaining Unit for the whole establishment would enhance the strength of workers, scattered in five units and as a result their labour problems would be solved at the plant level by the same Head Office---Impugned order of Chairman, was well reasoned and in full conformity of the present scheme of law, so far as declaration of one Collective Bargaining Unit was concerned---Impugned order whereby one Collective Bargaining Unit had been declared for the entire establishment, was upheld accordingly.

1998 SCMR 1354; PLD 2003 SC 628; 2000 SCMR 30; 2001 PLC 143; 2001 PLC 143; PLD 2001 SC 49; 2007 PLC 64, 2007 Tribunal Decision 27; 2003 SCMR 1346; 2004 PLC 155, 1979 PLC 692; PLD 1976 Kar. 200; 2003 SCMR 604; 2002 SCMR 1903; 1970 SCMR 681; SBLR 2004 Sindh 975; 1964 PLC 593 and 2007 PI.0 279 rel.

Muhammad Shafique for Appellant Union.

Malik Muhammad Rafique for Respondent No.1.

Faisal Mehmood Ghani for Respondents Nos.2 to 6.

Khalid Mehmood, Representative for Respondent No.8.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 205 #

2008 P L C 205

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Ghulam Nauman Shaikh, Member

Messrs AL-NOOR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Manager (Legal)

Versus

MEHNATKASH LABOUR UNION and 4 others

Case No. 4A(06) of 2008/K=24(08) of 2008-K, decided on 26th February, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----S. 49(4)(e)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)---Unfair labour practice by employees---Interim relief, grant of---Employer had alleged in petition in specific terms that employees and other members of Union, held gate meeting, in which threatening remarks were made against the General Manager of the employer to the effect that he could be a victim of bullet and anti-management slogans were also raised by employees---Demands were made for giving permanent employment to the seasonal workers, otherwise they extended threats to take into confidence local landlords of the area to put pressure on the employer for the purpose of acceptance of their demands---Employees had not made specific denial of said allegations of physical threats to the General Manager of employer and mental and moral pressure being applied on the management to compel or attempt to compel the employer to accept the demands by holding gate meetings, raising anti-management slogans etc.---Said methods of pressure, coercion, threat and intimidation adopted by employees and members of Union to accept their demands, fell under S.64(1)(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which was an act of unfair, labour practice on the part of workmen or the Trade Union of its members or office-bearers---There was also illegal strike and cessation of work by employees, without any notice of strike---National Industrial Relations Commission, had been invested with jurisdiction under Regln.32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 to prevent the apprehended commission of unfair labour practice---Apprehension existed that employees and the workers at their instigation and incitement could again resort to illegal strike or adopt go-slow measures---Grant of interim relief, in the case appeared to be emphatic---Employer had prima facie case for grant of interim relief to prevent apprehended commission of any unfair labour practice on the part of employees---Application for stay filed by employer was allowed and interim order was issued accordingly restraining employees from committing any acts of unfair labour practice.

Indus Battery Employees Union and 2 others v. Member, National Industrial Relations Commission Camp Karachi and 5 others 1992 PLC 1012; Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Suleman and others 1984 PLC 115; 1995 ILLJ 1177; 1987 PLC 129; 1995 PLC 675; 1992 PLC 125; 1994 PLC 735 and 1992 PLC 1044 rel.

Faisal Mahmood Ghani for Petitioner.

Shafique Qureshi for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 225 #

2008 P L C 225

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Member

KHALID HUSSAIN through General Secretary and 66 others

Versus

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 2 others

Appeal No.4A(06) of 2004, decided on 10th January, 2008.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

---Ss. 49(4)(e), 50(3) & 63--National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)---Unfair labour practice by the employers---Status quo, grant of---Petitioners though belonged to categories of Cleaners; Malies, Drivers, Naib Qasids and Foremen, but having valid driving licenses in their possession, had been assigned the duty of drivers by order in writing issued by the establishment---Petitioners had been driving official vehicles of the establishment to their entire satisfaction and were working against regular vacancies of drivers and one against regular vacancy of Foreman---Petitioners being aggrieved of advertisement in the press of various vacancies, including those of drivers and Foremen, apprehended that they would be withdrawn from their respective posts after fresh recruitments---Petitioners filed petition under S.49(4)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 against the establishment---Status quo was issued insofar as recruitments of outsiders against posts claimed to have been held by the petitioners was concerned---Said status quo order though subsequently was recalled, but management was directed not to pass any adverse orders against employment of petitioners till the disposal of preliminary objections raised by the establishment--Petitioners had contended that they had acquired the status of permanent workers on the. jobs on which they had been temporarily appointed to work without extra monetary benefits---Petitioners who were originally appointed in different categories, were required to perform the duties of those posts for which they were not recruited that was done merely for the reason that they had ability to do so---Employer-employees sound relations based on justice and fairplay were of paramount importance in the interest of the organization---Petitioners, had rightly pleaded that they had precedence over direct recruits---Sufficient material was on record to establish unfair labour practice on part of the employers--Petition filed by the petitioners was allowed with the direction to the employers to take measures to make adjustment of petitioners against the posts they had been working and also decide their cases of seniority, if any.

1996 SCMR 1349; Akram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100; M.D. Sui Southern Gas v. Ghulam Abbas and others PLD 2003 SC 724; 1995 PLC 539; Government of Punjab v. PLAT 2002 SCMR 78; Province of Punjab v. PLAT 2002 PLC 67; Executive Engineer Pak P.W.D. v. Abdul Aziz and others PLD 1996 SC 610; U.B.L. v. LAT 1997 PLC 446; 1983 PLC 1154; 1997 PLC 388; 2000 PLC 608; Punjab Small Industries Corporation v. Labour Appellate Tribunal 1988 SCMR 1725; National Shipping Corporation's case 1975 PLC 1; 1997 PLC 282; 1990 PLC 689; 2001 PLC 450; 2003 PLC 279; 1999 PLC 57; 1989 SCMR 353; 1985 SCMR 1753; 1995 PLC 554; 1994 PLC (SC) 411; 1993 PLC 660; 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1178; 1996 PLC (C.S.) 572; PLD 2003 SC 724; 1974 PLC 194; 1979 SCMR 304; 1980 PLC 8001(sic); 1987 PLC 390; 1983 PLC 8508(sic); 1996 PLC 103; U.B.L. v. Mukhtar Hussain 2007 PLC 138 and L.D.A. v. Salahuddin 2004 PLC 18 ref.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 49(4)(e), 50(3) & 63---Unfair labour practice by the employers---Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission---Scope---Unfair labour practice on the part of the employers having been alleged in the case, National Industrial Relations Commission, had the jurisdiction to deal with the cases under Ss.49(4)(e) & 50(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.

Muhammad Sadiq Warriach for Petitioners.

Syed Rais Ahmed Jafri for Respondents.

PLC 2008 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION 242 #

2008 P L C 242

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Muhammad Shabbir Jamal, Member

HABIB BANK EMPLOYEES UNIOIN OF PAKISTAN through Secretary-General

Versus

HABIB BANK LIMITED through President

Case No.4A(11) of 2008=24(15) of 2008, decided on 12th March, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 49(4)(e) & 63---Unfair labour practice by the employers---Petitioner-Union was aggrieved of the promotion of 205 employees as junior officers who were alleged to be its members---Contention was that said employees had not been promoted, but were re-designated with the intention to disallow them to cast their votes in the forthcoming secret ballot, the date of which was later on announced and that said act of management was a measure that could be calculated as an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of S.63(1)(a)&(b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002---Validity---Such was not a case of unfair labour practice on the part of employer as alleged by the petitioner-Union for the reasons firstly because balloting was a democratic occasion or event that was organized after spending lot of energies, resources and time after following procedural obligations under the law with earnest intention to meet the democratic objective of the relevant legislation, secondly all the contestants had stake in the ultimate outcome of the process to hold ballot---If before the process was completed/finalized, one of the contestants would come to the court with a particular grievance of narrow scope that could have recourse to its redress otherwise its very prayer to stay the holding of balloting would be seen with suspicion as undemocratic move---If stay was granted, it would operate contrary to the interest of other stakeholder---Stay was declined, in circumstances---Other recourse that was open to the petitioner or the affected workers was that either those 205 workers in the interest of trade Unionism must have given up promotions and saved their status from controversy, or must have challenged their status in the proper legal forum---Said workers enjoyed their new position for some time and when the ballot was ordered, they made it a base to approach that forum with the prayer to stay the said process of holding secret ballot---Such approach was not bona fide---Promotion or re-designation of certain workers, which matter otherwise was challengeable under the law, could not, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as interference in the ballot and so was not an unfair labour practice within the meaning of the law, in circumstances---Petitioner-Union should better resolve its grievance in that regard from Registrar Industry-wise Trade Union, which was the proper forum under the law---Present being not the case of unfair labour practice, petition was not maintainable before National "Industrial Relations Commission.

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner.

Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Respondent.

Supreme Court

PLC 2008 SUPREME COURT 94 #

2008 P L C 94

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar Nasir-ul-Mulk and Raja Fayyaz Ahmad, JJ

AKHTAR ALI MANGI

Versus

UNITED BANK LIMITED

Civil Petitions Nos.745 and 746 of 2007, decided on 21st August, 2007.

(On appeal from the order, dated 28-5-2007 of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur passed in Labour Appeals Nos.16 and 17 of 2006).

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 46 & 48---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Termination of service---Absence from duty without leave---Workman was charge-sheeted and on the recommendation of Inquiry Officer, he was terminated from service---Labour Court accepted the appeal filed by workman and reinstated him in service but High Court set aside the order passed by Labour Court---Validity---On the basis of thorough probe, the Inquiry Officer concluded that workman was guilty of misconduct for his habitual absence from duty and late coming during specified period---Allegations of habitual absence from duty against workman was fully substantiated---High Court had correctly set aside the judgment of Labour Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.

Zaheer Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nasim Bhatti, OG-1, U.B.L. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st August, 2008.

PLC 2008 SUPREME COURT 121 #

2008 P L C 121

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Rana Bhagwandas, Hamid Ali Mirza and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ

MUHAMMAD AZHAR and others

Versus

Messrs UNITED TEXTILE MILLS through Manager

Constitutional Petitions Nos. 236-K to 289-K of 2007, decided on 4th September, 2007.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

----Ss. 2(viii)(a) & 25-A---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.11-A---Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S.15---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.19---Closure of Mills by owners without permission of Authority---Workers' claim for dues, pendency of---Purchase of such Mills by respondent-Company in open auction in execution of decree passed by Banking Court in recovery suit against such Mills---Non-acceptance of claim of workers of such Mills by respondent-company---Grievance petition by workers of such Mills against respondent-company---Validity---Managements of such Mills and that of respondent-company were entirely different---Respondent-company had purchased such Mills in open auction free from all liabilities, claims, encumbrances and charges---Respondent-company, by purchasing such Mills had in actual effect taken a new birth---Respondent-company, after purchase, had not taken upon itself obligation to pay dues to workers of such Mills---Respondent-company could not be assumed to be successor of such Mills, and thus, it was not legally obliged to pay dues to workers of such Mills---Grievance petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Rafique Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Mazher Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th September, 2007.

PLC 2008 SUPREME COURT 239 #

2008 P L C 239

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, JJ

MIR ALAM and others

Versus

REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS and others

C.P. No.674-K of 2007, decided on 4th February, 2008.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss. 46 & 48---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Dismissal from service---Respondents, who were dismissed from service by the management, filed grievance petition against their dismissal, which was dismissed by the Labour Court---Respondents filed an appeal against said dismissal order, before High Court under S.48(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002; during pendency of said appeal respondents filed application under S.48(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 which was decided by the High Court vide impugned order, whereby membership of respondents as members of Trade Union was restored---High Court while disposing of application filed by respondents under S.48(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, had completely ignored the material facts, which if taken into consideration, would have never allowed the said impugned order---High Court while dealing with application under S.48(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, did not take notice of the fact that appeal filed by the respondents under S.48(1) of the Ordinance, was pending adjudication and it was not conceivable that said fact was not brought to the notice of the High Court and it was surprising that High Court should come to the conclusion directing the Registrar, Trade Unions to hold fresh election whereas respondents were allowed to participate for electing Collective Bargaining Agent, when they were not even in the service---Impugned order could not be sustained in circumstances---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was allowed and impugned order was set aside by the Supreme Court ---Respondents could not be deemed to be the workers of the employers until their appeals were decided in their favour.

S. Shahanshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

PLC 2008 SUPREME COURT 355 #

2008 P L C 355

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J., Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI

Versus

PRESIDENT, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and others

Civil Appeal No.1639 of 2005, decided on 9th June, 2008.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 29-10-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No.6860 of 2002).

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXVIII of 1969)---

----Ss. 25-A & 2---"Workman"---Definition---Scope and applicability of Ss.25-A & 2 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969---Employee of a Bank, having an individual dispute unrelated to industrial dispute, was not a "workman" for the purpose of S.25-A read with S.2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and was therefore, not entitled to the remedy provided under S.25-A of the Ordinance---Principles.

Syed Matloob Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited, Lahore 1992 SCMR 227; National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad and 2 others 1993 SCMR 672; Muhammad Ahmed v. Government of Sindh and another 1999 SCMR 255 and Messrs Shaheen Airport services v. Nafees-ul-Hassan Siddiqui and another 2001 PLC 737 distinguished.

Muhammad Arif Alvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshed Ali Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.

Yawar Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Date of hearing: 9th June, 2008.