Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 120 of 1971, decided on 14th June 1971.

[as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (XIX of 1970)] and Ss. 41(3)(a) Ss 47-Petition under S. 34-Not an industrial dispute Permission of Court for dismissal of worker during pendency of petition under S. 34, held, not needed.

During the pendency of workers' petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as amended by Ordi nance XIX of. 1970 before the Labour Court the petitioner dismiss ed. The order of dismissal was challenged as illegal having been issued without the Court's permission as envisaged under section 47 of the Ordinance. It was contended that the petition under section 34, which was pending, was an industrial dispute. It was stressed that in view of the provisions of section 41 (3) (a) of the Ordinance an application under section 34 was an industrial dispute.

Held: A petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can never be said to be an industrial dispute because a petition under section 34 is for the enforcement of a guaranteed or a secured right which can never be a subject-mater of the industrial dispute because by way of an industrial dispute the prayer is made for securing a right. Section 34 pre-supposes the existence of a secured or a guaranteed right which excludes the possibility of an industrial dispute being raised by way of a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

No doubt section 34 is mentioned in clause (a) of sub section (3) of section 41 but that does not mean that an industrial dispute can be raised by way of a petition under section 34. The Industrial Relations Ordinance as originally enforced envisaged the possibility of raising an industrial dispute by way of a petition under section 34 but not after its amendment. Section 34 as now framed excludes the raising of an industrial dispute under this section. It appears that when the Industrial Relations Ordinance was amended the presence of section 34 in subsection (3) (a) of section 41 was lost sight of and it was not deleted by an over sight.

As a petition under section 34 cannot be said to be an industrial dispute so it was not necessary for the respondent to obtain permission of Labour Court under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the dismissal of the petitioner.

Abdul Majid Qureshi for Petitioner.

Mahmood Athar Zaka for Respondent.

.---Abdul Hamid has filed this petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the order of his dismissal dated 18-5-71. He challenges the validity of the order on the ground that no permission of the Court was obtained prior to the order of his dismissal which was necessary as an industrial dispute No. 73/1970 was pending between the parties in this Labour Court at the time of his dismissal.

This application is challenged by the respondent on the ground that the same is not maintainable as no industrial dispute was pending when the order of dismissal of the petitioner was passed.

The contention of the learned Representative of the petitioner is that an application under section 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance which the petitioner had filed was pending which was an industrial dispute between the parties so the permission of the Court was necessary before passing 'an order of dismissal as required under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The contention of the learned Representative for the petitioner cannot be accepted because a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can never be said to be an industrial dispute because a petition under section 34 is for the enforcement of a guaranteed or a secured right which can never be a subject-matter of the industrial dispute because by way of an industrial dispute the prayer is made for securing a right. Section 34 pre-supposes the existence of a secured or a guaranteed right which excludes the possibility of an industrial dispute being raised by way of a Petition under section 34 of that I. R. O.

The learned Representative of the petitioner relied on the provisions of section 41 of the I R. O. for the view that an industrial dispute can be raised under section 34 of the I. R. O. No doubt section 34 is mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (3)1 of section 41 but that does not mean that at; industrial dispute can be raised by way of a petition under section 34. The I. R. O. as originally enforced envisaged the possibility of raising an industrial dispute by way of a petition under section 34 but not after its amendment. Section 34 as now framed excludes the raising of an industrial dispute under this section. It appears that when the I. R. O. was amended the presence of section 34 in subsection (3) (a) of section 41 was lost sight of and it was not deleted by an over sight.

In these circumstances, the presence of section 34 in clause (3) (a) of section 41 of the 1. R. O. could not mean that an industrial dispute can be raised by a petition under section 34.

As a petition under section 34 cannot be said to bean industrial dispute so it was not necessary for the respondent to C obtain permission of this Court under section 47 of the I. R. O. for the dismissal of the petitioner. His dismissal without the permission of the Court cannot, therefore, be said to be bad in law on that score. As the main contention of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal is that it is bad on account of lack of permission of Court under section 47 of the I. R. O., which has been repelled by us, there is no merit in this petition which has got to be dismissed.

The result is that we dismiss the petition as not maintainable. Cost on the parties.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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