Pakistan Case Law← Search
1996 PLC 685

AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES MAZDOORITTEHAD UNION through General

Citation1996 PLC 685
CourtNational Industrial Relations Commission
Case No.Cases Nos. 4-A(378)-K and No, 24(165)-K of 1995
Date1996-02-12
Judge(s)M. M. Pirzada
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' This is a petition filed by the petitioner Ahmed Food Industries Mazdoor Ittehad Union through its General Secretary against the respondents under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 alongwith an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P & F) Regulations, 1973 alleging therein that the petitioner-union was registered in the establishment of respondents and that the respondents were not granting the legal rights to the workers, therefore, the General Secretary and President filed an application to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 2-10-1995 for registration of the union and it is further stated in paras. Nos. 5 and 9 as under:-- ' Para. No: 5.---The management of the respondents establishment in accordance with its anti- labour and anti-law policy as mentioned above terminated the permanent services of the following workers who were active members of the petitioner union, during the pendency of the registration of union:

(1) Muhammad Yaqoob s/o Muhammad(Hawala No. 70575)

(2) Abdullah Jan s/o Abdul Rehman 70219)

(3) Zulfiqar Ali s/o Gul Muhammad 70676)

(4) Azizullah s/o Abdul Aziz Khan 70698)

(5) Muhammad Tasleem s/o Rehmat Ali70575)

(6) Ali Muhammad s/o Suleman 70554)

(7) Faiz Muhammad s/o Yar Muhammad70349)

(8) Fazal Hussain s/o Muhammad Zaman70023)

(9) Salamuddin s/o Islamuddin 70792)

' Para. No, 9.--The management of the respondents establishment is still following its anti-labour, anti-law policy and illegal unfair labour practice and now there is a confirmed apprehension that the respondents establishment will further unlawfully and illegally terminate/dismiss the services of the petitioner and other office-bearers and permanent workers or/and transfer the permanent workers as the management of the respondents has terminated/dismissed the permanent service of the under-noted workers:

(1) Amin Saeed s/o Muhammad Bas(Hawala No. 70488)

(2)Amir Zada s/o Zardad Khan 70261)

(3)Habibullah s/o Muhammadullah and transferred the following permanent worker:70978)

(1)Habibur Rehman s/o Ghulam Jan 70398)

(2)Muhammad Iqbal s/o Suleman and others 70600)

' The petitioner has prayed that respondents and persons connected with them be directed not to terminate, dismiss, transfer the applicant and other office-bearers/active members and other permanent workers from the service and refrain from unfair labour practice and creating impediment in the promotion of trade union activities.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has taken up a legal plea that; No, 1: the petitioner- union is not C.B.A., therefore, non-C.B.A. Cannot file any petition on behalf of the workers of the present nature in view of the cases reported in 1980 PLC 2 and 1982 PLC 283 and a Full Bench decision of this Commission No, 7(13)/89-K, No, 2 it is admittedly the case of the petitioner that the persons showed in paras. 5 and 9 have already retrenchoed for which they have filed cases under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 before Sindh Labour Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same merits to be dismissed.

4. In view of the facts that the petitioner-union at the time when they had filed the petition admittedly was not C.B.A. And I am in agreement with the learned counsel this petition therefore merits no consideration as para. From this the rights of the C.B.A. Are conferred as mentioned under the I.R.O., 1969 as enumerated in sections 22(12)(a)(b), 23-A, 25-A, 26(1) and 49 of the I.R.O., 1969 and not beyond that. In the present case the petitioner which is not C.B.A. Even does not base its rights as stated above. Under the circumstances, I dismiss this petition on this ground that non- C.B.A. Cannot file this petition to represent the aggrieved person/for whom the remedy is available under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The interim orders already passed are also recalled.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search