Find a Lawyer

Application No. 94 of ‑1968, decided on 25th May 1968.

---S. 11(1)(d) read with Ss. 12 & 38‑An individual can move Industrial Court only when an industrial dispute was pending before Court and S: 37 had been contravened‑No dispute being pending before Court‑Application under S. 11(1)(d) read with H S. 12, from an individual, held, not maintainable.

Abdul Majid Qureshi for Petitioner.

Abdul Rahman Dar for Respondent.

This is an application by Abdul Rehman Fitter under sections 11 and 12 of the West Pakistan Indust8al Disputes Ordinance, 1968, .by which he has requested this Court; to direct the Chairman, Pakistan Western Railways, Lahore, to re‑open the number of the applicant and allow him to perform duty, granting, him all benefits of service and compensation arising thereof.

The applicant has alleged that he was not allowed to perform duty on 9-2‑68, and no action was taken on an applica tion submitted by him on 26‑2‑1968, to the General Foreman in this connection. He contends, that the dispute is in existence since 9‑2‑68 and as no written order was served upon him nor any allegation was made out; against him for stopping him from attending to duty, the order was unlawful and without autho rity. As pointed out above, he has requested for the issue of a direction to the respondent to permit him to perform duty and grant him all benefits of service and. compensation arising therefrom.

The respondent in his reply pointed out, that the petitioner had failed to specify any industrial dispute which was pending in this Court, and with which he was connected. It was asserted, that no such dispute was pending, It was thus submitted that the applicant had no locous, stands to file this application.

As far as I am aware, there is only one provision and that is section 38 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance,, 1968, which gives right to an individual to raise industrial disputes. He can do so if he can establish, that the employer has contra vened the provisions of section 37 of the Ordinance during the pendency of an industrial dispute before the Court No other provision of law could be pointed out by Mr. Abdul Majid Qureshi. He, however, asserted that in view of the definition of the term industrial dispute', the applicant was competent to move this Court under subsection l l(1)(d) read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance,‑1968. There is no force in his argument, as these sections merely clarify that the Industrial Court, which shall be deemed to be a civil Court for the purpose of adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute, shall follow such procedure, as may be prescribed, subject to the provisions of the Ordinance and 'shall exercise and perform such other powers and functions, as are or may be conferred or imposed upon it by or under this Ordinance. The Ordinance nowhere says, that an individual can raise a dispute irrespec tive of the fact, that there is no pendency 9f an industrial dispute between the parties in the Industrial Court and there has been no contravention of the provisions of section 37 of the Ordinance. It is admitted that, no industrial dis pute is pending between the parties in the Industrial Court. I these circumstances. I hold, that the instant application is miscon ceived. It has no merit. It is, therefore, 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.