Find a Lawyer

Application No. 22 of 1969, decided on 24th November 19,69.

---Ss. 37 & 48 read math Industrial Relations Ordinance (.XXIII of 1969), Ss. 47, 60 & 67(2)(6)‑Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Does not contain any provision responding to S. 38 of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968‑Section 47, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 corresponding to S. 37, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 Provisions for application for re‑instatement corresponding to S. 38, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordnance, 1968‑Not provided in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑Remedy against breach of S. 47, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1959 provided by way of criminal liability under S. 60, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Proeeedittgs pending under S. 38, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968‑CGanot proceed after promulgation of industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

---S. 34 read with West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance (IV of 1968), S. 38‑Words "party to an industrial dispute" in S. 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968‑Mean collective bargaining agent‑ Application by an individual under S. 38, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, held, not covered by S. 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance and hence cannot proceed after promulgation of litter Ordinance.

Mehraban Khan for Petitioner.

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.

This is an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, for re‑instatement. Under the aforementioned Ordinance if any employer contravenes the provisions of section 37, he could be proceeded against under sections 38 and 35 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. Under the new Ordinance, i.e. the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the corresponding provision of section 37 of the old Ordinance, is provided in section 47. If there is any breach of section 47JA the only remedy under the new Ordinance is under section 60, which is a criminal liability. There is no corresponding pro vision of section 38 of the old Ordinance in the new Ordinance.

Now the point which requires determination is as to whether present proceedings under section 38 can proceed. Section 67(2)(6) in the new Ordinance reads as follows :‑

"Anything done, rules made, notification or order issued, officer appointed. Court constituted, notice given, proceedings commenced or other actions taken under any law shall be deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, constitute J, given, commenced or taken, as the case may, under the corresponding provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of consistency therewith."

This section means that proceedings under any law will remain intact if there is a corresponding provision in the present Ordinance, to the extent of its consistency. Since there is no corresponding provision provided in the new Ordinance, this petition does not lie. The representative: of the petitioner, however, argued that his case fell under section 34 of the new Ordinance, which reads as follows:‑

"Application to Labour Court.--Any party to an industrial dispute relating to a matter arising out of any right guaranteed or secured to an employer or workmen by or under any law for the time being in force or an award or settlement may apply to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute."

This contention has no force because this is a petition, by an individual and not by a party to an Industrial Dispute, which according to the present Ordinance can only be the collective bargaining agent.

In the result this petition is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.